Still disliking Artillery

[JonS]

Light mortar fire seems a bit too acurate

Sometimes, maybe, but not always.

[!!!ANECDOTE ALERT!!!]

The other day I encountered an 88mm FlaK in an especially nice position. Over the course of about 20-30mins I expended:

3 x 60mm mortars firing direct (60+ rounds in total) (used one after the other)

1 x 81mm on-map firing indirect (10 rounds total)

1 x bty 105mm off-map firing indirect (10 rounds total)

plus some MG and rifle fire. At the end of all that the gun was still fighting and proceeded to KO some of my tanks

Eventually it was taken out by a lucky Sherman.

[/ANECDOTE]

[womble]

I wouldn't say that is even close to a common occurance. I use direct fire as often as I can, and I'd love to see that happen sometime. Most of the time, they'll fire a few spotting rounds that land a distance away and I don't remember them ever getting a lucky first shot hit in the middle of a squad.

Even when they're zeroed in, it takes quite a few rounds to completely kill a squad.

I think it depends a lot on the range of engagement and probably the experience of the shooter. Green crews take a while to get their range, whereas Veteran crews firing over <300m distances can get first round hits. I get the impression, too, that, like Adjusting a spotted barrage, if a changed aim point is close to the immediately preceding aim point, with no gap, they don't need a spotting round, and go immedately to accurate FFE.

Afterthought: given the suppression effect of a near or direct mortar hit, it doesn't matter whether the AI takes the correct action or not, the struck unit is going to be Pinned in place for following rounds, especially with 81mm.

[jakla1027]

Theirs an old saying, by who i don't recall, about arty that i believe dates back to Napoleons era or the U.S. Civil War. (correct me if I'm wrong please) It goes something like, "artillery is queen of the battlefield".

Also & I'll try to find sources on this, but i believe that artillery fire was the number one cause of casualties in all armies, amongst the foot soldiers in WWI, WWII, & Korea. I'll try and confirm that with sources here over the next few days.

[JonS]

Theirs an old saying, by who i don't recall, about arty that i believe dates back to Napoleons era or the U.S. Civil War. It goes something like, "artillery is queen of the battlefield".

*Ahem*

The infantry are queens of the battlefield.

Artillery is the King of the battlefield, and thou knowest well what the King does to the queen.

[womble]

Also & I'll try to find sources on this, but i believe that artillery fire was the number one cause of casualties in all armies, amongst the foot soldiers in WWI, WWII, & Korea. I'll try and confirm that with sources here over the next few days.

I think we're all pretty much in agreement on that front, Jakla. Where some people might disagree a little is in the distribution of those casualties across the theatre. Was artillery fire as predominant a casualty inflictor in the actual battlespace? The overall figures for the theatre include lots of situations where artillery was the only way the enemy could inflict casualties: rear areas when denied access to the air.

I find in CM battles that while HE does cause the most casualties, a good chunk of that HE is delivered from tank tubes, not what you'd normally consider artillery.

[Paper Tiger]

To the OP

I'd say that OFFBOARD artillery is one of the things that CMx2 largely gets right. (Not NAVAL artillery though) I think you'd find it worked as you'd expect it to if you played on very large maps (2+km x 2+km) with a minimum of a Battalion a side, even against a well set-up AI defence.

TRPs are a mixed bag. Not only do they allow a FO to call in artillery on, or near, their location at any time without LOS, they also permit onboard mortars which can fire indirectly to do the same, even after they've moved in the game. Further, the owner gets a bonus to fires on enemy units in the vicinity of a TRP. So you have to be careful with them.

[Steiner14]

IMO the problem we have now is a result of interconnected problems. Maybe it's ot even a problem of arty itself?

1. The IDing of units IMO delivers too much info (gun knocked out) in the case of mortar fire. In reality you usually only knew it, after commencing a new attack. Often enough attacks were cancelled and arty or air support called in again - and a new TRY.

Right now we don't need to try. We know the condition of dug in units.

This uncertainty seems somewhat reduced when it comes to direct fire against ATGs where the tank crews could recognize, if they hit the gun directly and if it was physically destroyed.

But artillery explosions do harm soft targets, but not necessarily the gun itself. And since the crew keeps the heads down or even could relocate in a trench, the FO doesn't see that much. IMO the uncertainty should be higher.

2. Dug in units seem to have not enough protection (they are not deep enough and the trenches and holes seem to be too wide).

I think the protection of foxholes and trenches in combination with the knowledge about the status of dug-in units could be the core of the problem, not necessarily the mortars anymore.

Because what feels really correct and good in the game right now, if you have units in the open or in the woods and there comes arty. That's really, really awful. You really have them to run like in reality.

But to me there seems to be not enough difference to dug in units. To me the available foxholes or trenches are more of the flat hasty kind, but not the real ones of fully prepared defenses.

[slysniper]

I've won a few huge battles against the AI, where I picked one platoon of troops and a ton of artillery. Pretty easy if you are methodical, plus the fact that the AI is so bad.

In PBEM's, on the other hand.. this just isn't the case. At all.

Typically in PBEM's, a platoon or a couple squads get beat up by artillery, but it's never what determines who wins or loses the battle. Most people are too aware of the threat to sit theire in a vulnerable spot when the spotting rounds start dropping.

It's mortars in direct fire that's the most accurate, responsive, and dangerous.

+++! to this statement.

Since I only judge the game as to how it plays in H to H. Not against the AI.

Avoiding arty strikes is not all that hard. I have even managed to fire large AT guns, then hand push them to new locations and be able to avoid Arty directed at their known location.

The weapon to truely fear is the small direct support mortars. They can wreck your day or be the best tool you have. Too quick to respond and hard to pin

As for other comments on being too powerful in the game. I just this week-end was comparing them to other games to see how they compared. Now in CM1, of course we know they did not compare similar at all. but look at the close combat series. You find a small mortar could easily take out a enemy unit at a known location. I also looked at ASL, small mortars there also played very strong. Once rounds are on target, odds of rounds hitting are high and each explosion represents more firepower than a squad. Within two or three direct hits in that game you can likely see routing units with likely causualties to half the squad.

So really, the only game that do not represent the mortar similarly is the first version of CM. As vs RL (that can always be debated

[GerryCMBB]

My recollection of the small mortars in ASL was that they were very weak in terms of firepower. Good ROF admittedly.

Gerry

[TrailApe]

As a former gunner, I laugh at your piffles and make wind at you!

One of the French monarchs has 'The Final Argument of Kings' engraved on his artillery.

Traditionally artillery has dominated battlefields and since the latter stages of WW1 it's importance has become more evident. If you de-powered artillery you would be moving away from the realism that is so treasured in this series.

Now there MAY be a case for improving protection for troops who are well dug in, but that is not the same as emasculating the indirect fire power.

[eltorrente]

As a former gunner, I laugh at your piffles and make wind at you!

One of the French monarchs has 'The Final Argument of Kings' engraved on his artillery.

Traditionally artillery has dominated battlefields and since the latter stages of WW1 it's importance has become more evident. If you de-powered artillery you would be moving away from the realism that is so treasured in this series.

Now there MAY be a case for improving protection for troops who are well dug in, but that is not the same as emasculating the indirect fire power.

Well, I'm no former Gunner - but I agree with you. I'd rather see possibly better protection for troops in foxholes or whatever, but I don't think the overall lethality should be messed with.

I think it works well the way it is. The delay between calling a strike and rounds dropping is enough that you have to anticipate properly, or pin them down long enough, to get a good result. Most of the time it's purpose is to surpress and scare the enemy, maybe kill a few guys along the way.

[womble]

Now there MAY be a case for improving protection for troops who are well dug in, but that is not the same as emasculating the indirect fire power.

And, given the reported lack of enjoyment, the creation of some (more) scenarios where indirect fire isn't as available as ideally a commander would like.

[Steiner14]

Traditionally artillery has dominated battlefields and since the latter stages of WW1 it's importance has become more evident. If you de-powered artillery you would be moving away from the realism that is so treasured in this series.

But currently it's ridiculous, that three 50mm mortars can rip off any heavily entrenched defense of the heavy weapons.

If they would have been that powerful, the Germans would have not only abandoned their 50mm GL but would have copied the Überweapons instead of abandoning and using 81 mm as the smallest calibre, since they could afford to waste explosives like no other...

Or tell me, why the army with the biggest artillery, the Red Army, wasted 90% on the big calibers and guns, instead of equipping every squad with a small Über weapon? Instead of running against HMGs over and over again, why didn't they simply use a small mortar?!

The current EFFECT on defenders IMO is ridiculous. I emphasize EFFECT, because not necessarily the power is to mighty, it could also be that the defenses and the protection they offer could be to weak and the information for the player, if a threat has been knocked out is too good.

[slysniper]

My recollection of the small mortars in ASL was that they were very weak in terms of firepower. Good ROF admittedly.

Gerry

Wihout getting too deep into it, the charting on it was either a 6 or 8 on firepower. Not bad considering a squad was only 4 for most units.

Now looking at the results chart showed rolls on morale of 7 or less. So pretty good odds of a result unless in good cover which would have to have been a building or foxhole to drop that to a likely miss on a morale check.

So run a few hits on a squad, they likely break, get another hit on them, and men are being lost (half squads).

I think the reason they seemed so weak in that game is you could not combine them with anything. So likely you used them to pin or break a squad, but in game you were using combined infantry firepower to get groups on the higher levels to finish them off. So mortars seemed weak.

But again with the newer rules of ASL. many players learned to fire multi smaller fire groups at units to get the results wanted. first to break them, next to create the causulties. (anyway looking at it face value, they were not weak units). Is was just the fact you could combined a platoon of firepower with leader bonuses so easy that a mortar seems weak in comparison.

Where as in CMx2, you can combine two mortars and rain hell in a matter of seconds. But let see you get a platoon of infantry firing on one enemy location in this game like you did in ASL. Many times it is impossiple.

Many times it is just hard to even get a full squad able to fire on the same target

[TrailApe]

And, given the reported lack of enjoyment, the creation of some (more) scenarios where indirect fire isn't as available as ideally a commander would like.

You are 100% right, it is just a game and should be there for enjoyment, but enjoyment is a very subjective thing, one man's fire mission is another man's platoon cut to shreds.

Question is - did the deliverer enjoy it more than the recipient hated it?

As stated by someone previously, the smaller unit actions are those where artillery is conspicous by it's abscence, so plenty of scope there.

[slysniper]

But currently it's ridiculous, that three 50mm mortars can rip off any heavily entrenched defense of the heavy weapons.

Instead of running against HMGs over and over again, why didn't they simply use a small mortar?!

I think it has already been pointed out that what is lacking is how dug in units do not get the protection or features that they likely should. if there is a flaw, that would be as much of one as any. Plus the fact that a crew cannot run away from a weapon and come back as they did in RL would be another when it comes to the results of Mortar fire.

But Small mortars in RL have one main weakness, and the game shows that as correctly as it can. Limited Ammo. If anything impacted it more than anything else in combat it was the fact that it was hard to keep supplied. It was a temporary support. It was a asset that has a limited time of use.

Now in game terms, that does not always show up. but I still bet you that it is by far the most common weapon on the board that is out of action because it is out of Ammo. In RL you can multiply that issue alot. Since combat was not scheduled as well as game scenarios.

[Steiner14]

Good thoughts on ammo. As long as defenses are that vulnerable how about a workaround from scenario designers: less ammo?

[Vanir Ausf B]

It seems to me that artillery larger than 81mm mortars is unnecessary in the game, unless you're going to use it for tank busting. Same with 105mm-armed assault guns. Why bother? 75mm HE is perfectly adequate for all your infantry killing needs.

[eltorrente]

It seems to me that artillery larger than 81mm mortars is unnecessary in the game, unless you're going to use it for tank busting. Same with 105mm-armed assault guns. Why bother? 75mm HE is perfectly adequate for all your infantry killing needs.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

I just don't waste the money on the "big" artillery. I'd rather buy another platoon, or a couple more mortar teams. Sometimes my opponent will buy some big guns, and they end up killing some of my troops - but it never seems enough to be worth it.

[stikkypixie]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

I just don't waste the money on the "big" artillery. I'd rather buy another platoon, or a couple more mortar teams. Sometimes my opponent will buy some big guns, and they end up killing some of my troops - but it never seems enough to be worth it.

You can't put a price on the firework show that comes with it .

[eltorrente]

You can't put a price on the firework show that comes with it .

You are correct, Sir..

I DO like explosions, and when I play a scenario or campaign I like when I have them, because it's very satisfying to blast the crap out of an area. It's only when I have to purchase my own forces that I can't pull the trigger on buying them.

[LongLeftFlank]

Good thoughts on ammo. As long as defenses are that vulnerable how about a workaround from scenario designers: less ammo?

And several one man sniper teams (reduce them to 50% to lose that MP40 that opens up all the time) for the defender whose overriding task is not to be part of the unit's base of fire, but to find and kill the enemy FOs.

[A Canadian Cat]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

I just don't waste the money on the "big" artillery. I'd rather buy another platoon, or a couple more mortar teams. Sometimes my opponent will buy some big guns, and they end up killing some of my troops - but it never seems enough to be worth it.

Well it is all relative. If you have lots of points to spend then you can afford to spend a little more on artillery and still get that platoon:-)

I have recently been trying out 150mm artillery since I have been disappointed at my success at killing tanks with 105 shells. Those pesky Churchill tanks don't much like getting hit by 150mm shells.

[Redwolf]

The game still has some weaknesses in how cover works. It really isn't quite where abstracted cover was. This makes HE much more effective and hence makes artillery very deadly.

In particular this mix of abstracted cover and 3D cover still means that although the game code might have figured out suitable values for cover facing the enemy, we have seen that guys some kind of cover are very vulnerable to HE falling behind them. That is adequate if the cover the crouching behind a wall but foxholes, rubble, rocks and the like don't offer the difficulty to attacking HE that you find in historical accounts. In particular, consider fighting in central Italy in 1944 and read how difficult it was to dislodge the Germans with HE, no matter how much.

It seems to me that artillery larger than 81mm mortars is unnecessary in the game, unless you're going to use it for tank busting. Same with 105mm-armed assault guns. Why bother? 75mm HE is perfectly adequate for all your infantry killing needs.

Exactly. The way the game currently works, as long as you can have hits land behind enemy infantry, you never need more than 81mm.

[black_prince]

I tend to find that trenches and foxholes offer the kind of protection I would expect them to. In my experience even repeated fire missions with 105s (point detonating) tend not to cause many casualties against troops in foxholes. AT guns though are a different matter. Only sandbag walls give them any kind of protection and it is very inadequate protection (although sticking the crew in foxholes also helps a bit). I don't know how easy it was to excavate gun pits in Italy and Sicily but it does seem a bit of an omission to me not to have a better type of fortification for use with AT guns, infantry guns etc...

When it comes to infantry in the open, artillery is very deadly and that, I feel, is the way it should be.