ARTY SUCKS!!!!!

[manchildstein (ii)]

once i was targetting a kv2 with a german 150mm FO. The FO could see the tank but the barrage fell about 150 meters wide. where the shells fell, the FO couldn't see... but i'm wondering if in cmbb the game engine is not taking into account the height of the blast... in other words i'm certain that the FO could have seen the explosions, even if he couldn't quite see the ground where the shells were falling... but it appeared that the game engine was only looking at the ground itself...

and when this happens, how is the player to correct it? it seems like moving the target of the barrage 150 meters away from the intended target is a bit counterintuitive...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

This is a ban, whenever it is a question of QBs and so of actually paying for the stuff instead of having it award to you by a scenario designer. There is no way an attacker can buy prep fire and expect it to pay. In fact, attacking artillery under QB conditions, particularly for the Russians (the German 105s are reasonably useful), is so poor in bang for the buck, that the less spent on it the better the attacker is likely to do.

Jason, I could further elaborate on what it seems your mate did wrong, or you could just agree to argue about QBs. In scenarios there is no ban at all, because price and rarity is irrelevant. So your example is still a red herring.

Originally posted by JasonC:

"It was realistic that prep fire was often wasteful" is not a response.

It wasn't a response, because that is not what I said. I said that prep fire without knowledge (or observation) of the enemy positions was often wasteful.

QBs do not model breakthrough battles of the 1944 style very well, if at all. Neither should they, because they just would not be a lot of fun. If you want to play something like that, set up a scenario. Because the other thing you then have to agree to is that the German player buys only 80 guys for every 750 the Soviet player gets (those are ratios given by Niepold for the actual ratio of the attacks in the breakthrough sectors in Bagration). And no tanks, while the Soviet player can have SU76 and IS2 in close support. On a good day the German player would get a 75mm ATG and a few pillboxes, but then again, one could argue whether these should not be deemed destroyed in the first instance.

It is only in the second and third line of defense that things get interesting again, because it is there that the soviet player runs out of artillery, and the German player should be given tanks, Stugs and Alarmeinheiten to counter-attack.

On the more general point, as raised by Cogust, if you think your artillery is only of use if it kills the point value it did cost you to buy it, your thinking is very seriously off the mark. If it suppresses at the right time, and enables you to move other assets in, it has done its job. The aim is to gain fire superiority at the critical moment, to achieve freedom of movement. To do that properly in a large-scale assault, you need the intel on the German positions to set up your attack and a fire-plan (which, after all coming back to your example, your mate could not set up properly, because he did not know where you were).

[Cogust]

If you don't have intel on the enemy positions and can't figure out where they're hiding by reading the terrain, then it will of course be very hard for you to jutify the cost of heavy Soviet artillery when you're on the offensive.

But if you manage to guess correctly where the enemy is, then your artillery will be well worth the price you paid for it even if you have no intel at all from the beginning. And if the heavy artillery would be even cheaper, then those who can guess well will have a field day with lots of really cheap artillery to crush his opponent while those who don't guess as well still misses more than they hits and don't really benefit that much from a lower cost.

Heavy Soviet artillery is a very special tool that's somewhat hard to use and you have to read the terrain well and get inside the mind of your opponent to get full use out of it, but when you manage to do this you will get great rewards and his troops will get pummeled at the right time, at the right place.

When I'm defending against a Soviet attack I'm very careful where I set up my forces as I follow the rule 'Strange objects draw fire' and try to set up in unexpected places and dispersed and this will sometimes reduce the effectiveness of my defense. But I'm willing to take that as my opponent MIGHT buy heavy artillery and then i HAVE to be dispersed and in unexpected places to avoid getting killed, just the knowledge that heavy artillery is AVAILABLE is worth many points for the Soviet player and he doesn't need to buy any heavy artillery to get this benefit.

[Talenn]

You know, it all comes back to the same point I was trying to make with how cost effective StuGs were (waaaaayyyy back when the game first came out). At that point, I decided that it wasnt worth my time trying to suggest things here so I gave up, but the situation here is similar so I'll throw another $.02 into the pot.

What it really comes down to is 'Why do the Point Values exist?'. It certainly isnt to balance scenarios, because as has been pointed out repeatedly, they are completely unnecessary there. So, that leaves QBs. Dont Point Values exist to provide a 'balanced' game for QBs? If so, then the PV of a particular item should accurately reflect is 'worth' on the QB battlefield completely independant of any 'historical' baggage.

As has also been pointed out repeatedly, QBs do NOT even begin to simulate reality. The chances of an 'even' fight like the ones portrayed in QBs were slim and to be avoided. So, why bother holding QBs to the same 'realism' standard as scenarios? Why is it that when an item is judged (and analyzed) to be too cost effective or not cost effective enough, the canned response is 'well, because that is realistic'. It shouldn't MATTER if its realistic or not because realism went right out the door when you selected 'Quick Battle'.

What else are the Point Values supposed to be doing if not to be providing some sort of mechanism for creating a 'fair' or 'balanced' game? So shouldnt they be based on how 'cost effective' the item will be when used in the manner for which they are bought...ie QBs?

Anyways, this is still a touchy subject for me (hehe...does it show?). I think many people on this forum are doing the game a great disservice by constantly 'shouting down' (literally of figuratively) many folks who are trying to voice legitimate (at least to them) complaint.

Talenn

[Battlefront.com]

I haven't the time to really give this thread more than a once over, but I don't really understand where aree coming from when they say artillery is a waste of time. Tell that to a platoon I lost while my two company sized attack stalled at a critical moment. No other unit in the game could have caused such a result, not to mention the fact that there was NOTHING I could do about it. At least if there is some big heavy monster firing at you there are options available (at least most of the time) and the space of time needed to cause problems is a lot longer and less of a surprise.

Pillar made some comments in particular that I wanted to address:

The point is that for the cost, speaking only of quick battles, heavy soviet artillery on the attack is just not worth it.

Probably true. But I also feel this way about tons of other units. Especially aircraft. I never, ever have used one in a CMBO or CMBB Quick Battle. And I doubt I ever will. I also would never ever buy a Sturmtiger while on the defense or big AT guns while on the attack. In fact, the list of units I don't buy is probably about as long as the ones I would. And this is fine with me since, like heavy artillery, they should be used only in specific circumstances and not as every day bring alongs.

Yes, you might get some suppression value worth more than the killing itself, providing you have a good idea where to drop the stuff from turn one.... Which we admit is impossible in the quick battle system, since there is zero pre-battle recon.

Never say "impossible" Some maps the starting positions are plainly obvious. And on the defensive I have had good results using even the 15min delayed stuff by estimating where his attacking force would be at a given time. But point taking that this is not an easy thing to do because of the lack of pre battle recon.

So the cost does become prohibitive. You don't see it in quick battles. When you do, the fun is short-lived. The "ooh the atmopshere is great" quick fleets when the defender realizes the attacker doesn't have the points needed to put up a serious effort, and then it's just not fun.

Again, I see nothing wrong with this. It is absolutely no different than "ooh the atmosphere is great" quickly fleeting when 3 out of 4 King Tigers bog down or when it turns out to be night/fog/forest/etc.

Folks, no single element in CM can be removed from the whole and claimed to be an überweapon or an ünter one. I can not count how many times people only see one tree in the forest one day, a different tree another, etc. Pretty soon they have pointed out all the trees and still do not see the forest

Not much we can do about this except to remind people that QBs are not the only way to play CM, nor are canned scenarios the only way to go either. There is a reason for that. Neither can do 100% of what the user wants or what history has to offer. Plain and simple.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Talenn,

What else are the Point Values supposed to be doing if not to be providing some sort of mechanism for creating a 'fair' or 'balanced' game?

They are. The base cost, that is. Rarity is designed to give historical flavor to QBs instead of them being total fantasy. QBs might not be the most realistic way to paly CM, but the world isn't black and white. There are fairly reealistic QBs all the way over to completely and utterly unrealistic QBs

The main problem thus far is nobody, ever, since CMBO days has come up with a system that beats ours in terms of balance. Oh... many have tried, but all have failed quite miserably in our opinion. Fragile, specific systems are utterly useless. And so far that is all that people have come up with.

So shouldnt they be based on how 'cost effective' the item will be when used in the manner for which they are bought...ie QBs?

This is what our point system does. The problem is what is "cost effective" in one game is not the same as what is "cost effective" in another. Either because of QB parameters or combat results. A 200 pt battery of artillery that can effectively neutralize an enemy infantry company within 2-3 turns, without any chance of retaliation... that is pretty hard to balance when in another scenario the artillery could be poorly used and do jack squat. In other words, artillery can decide the game in your favor if everything goes right, or cause you to lose it because everything went wrong. I've asked this a hundred times... what kind of system can predict and account for this?

Steve

[Talenn]

Steve:

I absolutely agree that the changing situations can make for difficult PV formulae. In fact that is one of the most compelling reasons to embrace these types of discussions rather than dismiss them.

But my point is (and was with the StuGs) that at some point, you have to take a step back and see the trends. If 'x' is always being puchased (or reasonably always) or 'y' is never purchased, then you have to at least ENTERTAIN the possibility that there might be inaccuracies in the formulae. And that is not what I've seen here. What I see is basically a version of either 'it cant be done 100% accurately, so this is as good as its ever going to get' or 'well, we KNOW we are right so we arent even going to consider the possibility that collected data could change our minds'. Perhaps that is not the intention, but that is what it comes out as (and I'll admit that in some cases it is very warranted).

Anyways, the point here is that unless you are stating that there is no way that the formulae can be tweaked to be more accurate, then it behooves you to try and take these types of threads as constructive criticism and use them to collect data that might eventually allow you to tweak the formulae and make them more accurate. I think there are some pretty convincing arguements here (as there were in the StuG thread) that PVs might be out of whack a bit in regards to cost-effectiveness of certain items. Instead of basically dismissing them, wouldn't it be possible to use them to possibly conduct further research into tweaking the formulae?

Finally, I am aware that tweaking this game to perfection doesnt pay the bills. But this is something that I'm sure that some of the more 'senior' testers or poster would be more than glad to research and collect data on.

Cheers,

Talenn

[flamingknives]

Just a quick point with regards artillery accuracy. I've not had problems with most calibres of artillery, the exception being 120mm soviet mortars. This has led me to suspect that this module doesn't have spotting rounds.

I have also found arty effective on the AI (so one can assume that it would work on incautious human players)

In a meeting engagement, zero in on the VLs, and wait for the enemy to occcupy them. Soviet 122 and 152mm modules work well for this, as they are very cheap and it negates their long command delay. In the mean time, you can set up positions for an attack on the survivors.

[JasonC]

"A 200 pt battery of artillery that can effectively neutralize an enemy infantry company within 2-3 turns"

Does not exist, I am afraid. Unless you mean attackers without much cover hit via a TRP.

You also gave the example of "nothing else" being able to stop a two company attack at one point - at that sort of thing was true enough in CMBO. But in CMBB, just about anything can - temporarily. 4 HMGs can. 2 tanks with MG ammo can. Infantry is not unrealistically "uber" anymore, and that is great. In CMBO, when it was too robust, the heavier shells were irreplacable because nothing else stopped an infantry "big push" besides them.

Here are some results of actually using Russian prep fire barrages under QB budget conditions. Attack odds, 900 points of defenders, of which only 600 are maneuver (infantry and support - infantry force type), the rest divided between 1 105 FO and a flock of obstacles, trenches, etc. The attacker budget is 1575 points. With two companies of attackers and a platoon of tanks, or the reverse, one light "reactive" FO for smoke or point-target suppression, you get a maximum feasible "barrage fire" budget of about 500 points. Light stuff would be worthless for this.

You get 2 132mm rocket FOs, or 2 152mm Gun-Howitzers, or 4 122mm howitzers for barrage or map fire. If you target the 132s perfectly or not makes little difference. It helps marginally, but basically 128 sizeable shells fall on the defenders and go boom. What do they lose, with a quarter of their units in trenches but most just in wooded foxholes, a few in light buildings, etc?

They lose about a dozen men, another dozen or so break, and a third dozen are suppressed to yellow morale states at the instant the barrage finishes. Within 2 minutes, the remaining effect is a dozen men gone, half a dozen too frazzled to rally, a few shakier for the next time (red button, aka the old exclamation point). For 450 points of artillery fire, that is not a heck of a lot.

The best are the 152s if their targeting is perfect. I mean, each is targeted directly at the center of an occupied platoon-sized position, with airbursts possible. And neither scatters. In that case, they really are effective, I quite agree. They take out up to 50 men, and it is 3-5 minutes after the barrage lifts before the platoons struck have pulled themselves together, with half their original combat power or less.

But if one of the 2 happens not to guess exactly right, or wanders 100 yards left, then you get half the above result and move a bit of dirt. Which is still better than the rockets managed - even at +80% rariety included in the cost, the 152s are better if one of them hits anything squarely. Overall, you get a higher variance. The average is higher if you are good at predicting defender locations, and also not unlucky on scatter.

The 122s are between the two. I've had 2 full modules of them dumped on and near a platoon position, without benefit of trenches, and lost all of 7 men. Because the overlay of beaten zone and platoon was not perfect - as it can hardly be expected to be with QB map fire, ordered when practically nothing is known about the defense, except the terrain.

But with 4 modules to aim, it is harder to miss everything outright, and you are more likely to put 2-3 batteries in useful places, at least one of them squarely on something that counts. You will suppress that something, for a minute or three anyway. The downside compared to the 152s is that the lower blast doesn't permanently disable as many guys.

Fired on turn one as an actual prep fire, as opposed to at some planned time closer to likely infantry contact, they are however pretty hopeless. Because a few minutes after medium shelling (and both 122s and 132 rockets qualify as only "medium shelling", against troops in cover anyway), most of the suppression has past. (This is much less true with the heaviest stuff, 152 and upward, which breaks many it doesn't kill. It takes a lot longer to recover from "routed" than from "pinned").

If I -had- to spend points on a big prep fire or planned map fire barrage, I'd take the 152s and guess a position, and blow the heck out of it. But I'd much rather have two tank platoons.

You also spoke of the *defensive* use of arty in particular, stopping things. TRP arty on defense can indeed be effective, and I certainly use it at present prices. Because the TRPs are practically free, the rounds come down in one minute, and moving attackers have lousy cover. The only trick is figuring out someplace the attacker will eventually put infantry. But that is not hard, with obstacles to channel him as well as terrain, MGs to deny open areas at range, and more TRPs than you actually need to shoot at available cheaply.

As for the comment about not taking aircraft in QBs, if they aren't banned by mutual agreement I couldn't disagree more. Aircraft are quite effective. It is true you can't plan the way they intervene, and occasionally they hit the wrong guys. But some of them are quite cheap and their strafing runs alone are often worth their cost. Particularly early in the war, when armor isn't very robust from above.

And no, I do not expect QBs to recreate the breakthrough battles of Bagration. I would like it to be possible to employ Russian artillery doctrine in QBs, without losing the game at the outset as a points-specific consequence of the attempt.

You guys went to great lengths to get us prep fire and fire plans, and I think they could be a great feature - as indeed they can be in scenarios. Advancing to a fire plan is a tactically interesting situation, with its own nuances and problems, one's that I'd love to explore in QBs.

Understand, part of the attraction of QBs compared to scenarios is the constraint on tactics the overall budget stuff sets up. You can't just try anything, and have it succeed because you are so long in that suit as the scenario designer handed it to you. A tactic has to have a certain average effectiveness, or its use it discouraged.

I am interested in this aspect of QBs not for the "balanced playing field" it might create - a possible ladder player concern - nor for minute realism, which I do not expect from QBs. To me it is a matter of a "doctrine lab", seeing how various techniques work against each other as move and counter, etc. So what I'd like to see out of CM pricing for QBs - with variable rariety (which I like) on - is real doctrines fighting against each other, under a sort of efficiency constraint.

I'd like to see a Russian infantry battalion trying to follow a barrage or fire plan, into a defense in depth, as opposed to an "all up", linear defense. Or see how linear vs. strongpoint tactics handle such an attack better, whether the defenders should rely more on ranged heavy weapons or adequate infantry strength in strongpoints, or on local counterattacks, etc.

I can't really explore these things (competitively) in QBs, if fire plans for the attackers just don't work (in QBs only, mind) because they are too expensive. My attacker opponents will bring tanks or more infantry. Or if they try the barrage it predictably fizzles, and they thus attack with poor odds and lose - but then it doesn't reflect anything about the soundness of the defense doctrine, just the budgetary unwisdom of overinvesting in a weapon type that is ineffective for its present price.

I don't think the battalion FO idea is a silly one to dismiss out of hand, incidentally. It is extra work to set up battalion shoots in CMBB today, and not terribly realistic that it takes 6 men in 3 slow teams with 3 seperate phones to call one in. If all of the responsiveness single batteries are capable of were tied to such a change, including the cheaper ammo, it might be unbalancing I suppose. But I am proposing making the battalion shoot a wider, more diffuse instrument, which I think would go long way to preventing that. And making TRPs more expensive would, too.

The difference in ammo cost between a battalion FO and the battery ones would not be that large under my proposal. The battery is 67% of the current price per shell (with no TRPs), while the battalion would be 50% - or 25% off compared to the battery price. Rariety already raises prices 50-80% for some types over the pure effectiveness rating. And TRP cost goes way up.

The only thing that becomes significantly cheaper than the effectiveness ratings you guys have set, is use of the lighter, low-rariety FOs without benefit of TRPs. Particularly unresponsive, wide sheaf use of them. Is everybody else running to fire 76mm prep fires and expecting them to do anything to dug in troops, today? Would it be a problem if they could try that for significantly lower cost, given that it wouldn't work very well anyway?

[JasonC]

Flamingknives said "I have also found arty effective on the AI (so one can assume that it would work on incautious human players)"

I am afraid that does not remotely follow. Lots of things are effective against the AI without mattering in human fights. The AI will shove an entire company into open ground under lashing HMG fire beyond range of effective reply without doing anything to avoid or silence the MGs, or to break contact and rally.

While pinned that way, it is easy as pie to drop even light arty on massed infantry without cover, and run up big kill scores for the FO by the end of the day. But this is a "stupid AI trick" and proves nothing, because you never get such targets against humans.

Yes, you might hit even an incautious human moving onto a flag, despite the long delay of an arty module. Fine. But do you kill much by doing so, compared to the cost involved and the risk of failure? Against weak players, perhaps. 76mm or 82mm against stone buildings, not perhaps, the answer is no. Good players who pull back on seeing a larger spotting round, not often.

Artillery shouldn't be a scalpel anyway - except for the special case of TRP "registrations" in a prepared defensive scheme. In CMBO, people adjusted the point of aim every minute and drizzled in 8 155 shells per minute, practically adjusting them in flight, and playing "dodge ball" with individual enemy platoons over 150 meter distance scales. We had threads on the virtues of running sideways when you saw the spotting round, because the beaten zone is longer east-west.

That was all way overdone, way too much MM, and I am happy to have seen it change. Arty should be firing wide sheafs more often simply to ensure it hits something. It should not depend on predicting platoon size units conducting 100 meter shifts in position 5 minutes ahead of time.

But when the solution to low responsiveness is planned map fire, hitting only occasionally - or wide sheafs, hitting four times the area one fourth as hard - the prices should be lower, not higher. And rariety has come in, and made them higher instead. Precisely the longest delay, highest echelon guns types, which under CMBB flexibility conditions are the hardest to get to work.

Another temporary, partial solution would just be to play with rariety off, but that would be a shame in my opinion. I don't want to give up rariety, and I don't want to give up fire plans. But I don't see both remaining features of QBs simultaneously, under present prices.

My advice to attackers in the meantime is to take a minimum amount of responsive, lower echelon FOs on the attack, for smoke and gun suppression, and for the rest to rely on direct fire. Very occasionally take one big FO to keep defenders honest (the Germans can use the 150s for this, in particular, to avoid tangling with numerous Russian infantry, SMGs, etc in every tight terrain area). Don't "blow" your point odds on arty - it won't pay half as well as more tanks.

Meanwhile defenders can take the low rariety types (Russians up to 120mm, Germans to 150mm) and plenty of TRPs, and go to town.

[Andreas]

Jason, I really don't get it. We started this discussion with you believing that the 122s were as common as 150s, and that their rarety was falsely at 65%, and they were therefore unfairly penalised. Now that we have dealt with the misconceptions, you are coming along asking for all-singing, all-dancing QBs, which allow you to explore doctrinal differences, and stage Soviet attacks properly.

Seriously, why don't you use pre-built scenarios for that? If you play these (as I suspect) against a mate, just agree on a budget, and you even get your budgetary constraint. If you play the Soviets, ask him to buy about 50-70% of his 1st and 2nd line fixed defences and place them. Then show you the map, and let you fix TRPs on them. The real way to do this is an operation anyway.

Yes I do want QBs to do all that too, and bring me a cup of tea to my bed in the morning. It is just not very realistic to expect them to do that, and it seems to me that by now in this discussion you are just trying to make up something that is wrong, instead of looking at the game to see how you can actually do it.

As Steve said - is heavy Soviet artillery a risky investment in a QB? Yes. So are King Tigers, airpower, and a host of other weaponry.

There are lots of things that are not perfect in the artillery system. IMO pricing is way down the list.

BTW - if you are so keen on playing doctrinally relevant battles, why do you want to use 76mm guns in indirect fire?

[JasonC]

manchildstein asked about an off-target barrage "when this happens, how is the player to correct it?"

You just put the targeting line on the original target again. You do not have to "aim away" - the previous error will not "remain constant". Instead the "adjust fire" time will pass, and then the barrage will come down again - probably accurately, but subject again to some chance of scattering off target.

I hope that helps.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

"It was realistic that prep fire was often wasteful" is not a response.

It wasn't a response, because that is not what I said. I said that prep fire without knowledge (or observation) of the enemy positions was often wasteful.

QBs do not model breakthrough battles of the 1944 style very well, if at all. Neither should they, because they just would not be a lot of fun. If you want to play something like that, set up a scenario. Because the other thing you then have to agree to is that the German player buys only 80 guys for every 750 the Soviet player gets (those are ratios given by Niepold for the actual ratio of the attacks in the breakthrough sectors in Bagration). And no tanks, while the Soviet player can have SU76 and IS2 in close support. On a good day the German player would get a 75mm ATG and a few pillboxes, but then again, one could argue whether these should not be deemed destroyed in the first instance.

It is only in the second and third line of defense that things get interesting again, because it is there that the soviet player runs out of artillery, and the German player should be given tanks, Stugs and Alarmeinheiten to counter-attack.

On the more general point, as raised by Cogust, if you think your artillery is only of use if it kills the point value it did cost you to buy it, your thinking is very seriously off the mark. If it suppresses at the right time, and enables you to move other assets in, it has done its job. The aim is to gain fire superiority at the critical moment, to achieve freedom of movement. To do that properly in a large-scale assault, you need the intel on the German positions to set up your attack and a fire-plan (which, after all coming back to your example, your mate could not set up properly, because he did not know where you were). [/QB]</font>

[JasonC]

To Andreas - yes, I and an opponent can agree on exactly what we want to explore and tweak all of the force sizes and allowances to fit exactly that situation. But then each knows exactly what to expect, and that does not "stress" a doctrine the way having to deal with unknown enemy options does. How robust a method holds up under different enemy choices is a big part of the whole problem, and half the fun of QBs is not knowing what your opponent will try this time.

I can assure you I am not looking for something to find wrong. The whole concern came out of examining fire plans, especially for Russian attacks, and what it would take to get them to work under QB budget constraints. I am glad I was wrong about division 150 rariety for the Germans, but it does not help Russian fire plans.

What I would like to be able to combine - and maybe you can see a way to do this in the existing system - is the freedom and uncertainty of QB force choices, under variable rariety, with cost effective, offensive fire plan use of the slower artillery modules. The methods I've found so far are (1) ignore the rariety portion of their cost, or (sacrificing some freedom-uncertainty) (2) inflate the attacker's point total but stipulate such and such must be spent on arty.

I don't get a truly unpredictable attack this way, and the pricing issue can still make the Russian attacker want to spend as little as possible on slow arty, as much as possible on maneuver forces. The uncertainty over whether the attack will be armor intensive or HE intensive or infantry intensive, or in what combo, is significantly reduced. Maybe you can tell me a way to restore that uncertainty. If so, I am all ears.

Do I use Russian 76s on map? Sure, you can find me on record in prior posts advising 2 of them as overwatch, particularly early. I really don't see that is here or there. My comment about mass use of 76s for prep fires was about whether my "battalion FO" idea would create an overeffective "bargain" in the cheaper, low rariety FOs. Steve mentioned the concern that changes to the existing system can open up other pricing problems - something is made cheaper and gets overused, e.g., a legitimate concern in the abstract. I was addressing whether my battalion FO idea would create such a problem with existing low rariety FOs like the Russian 76mm, bought in battalions, and explaining why I did not think it would. It was a limited point.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I haven't the time to really give this thread more than a once over, but I don't really understand where aree coming from when they say artillery is a waste of time. [snips]

One specific complaint from the original posting that I think deserves to be addressed is the wasteful way in which CM:BB artillery fires off rounds at the rapid rate while the FO is trying to adjust fire.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

Posted by: JasonC

I am afraid that does not remotely follow. Lots of things are effective against the AI without mattering in human fights. The AI will shove an entire company into open ground under lashing HMG fire beyond range of effective reply without doing anything to avoid or silence the MGs, or to break contact and rally.

While pinned that way, it is easy as pie to drop even light arty on massed infantry without cover, and run up big kill scores for the FO by the end of the day. But this is a "stupid AI trick" and proves nothing, because you never get such targets against humans.

Yes, you might hit even an incautious human moving onto a flag, despite the long delay of an arty module. Fine. But do you kill much by doing so, compared to the cost involved and the risk of failure? Against weak players, perhaps. 76mm or 82mm against stone buildings, not perhaps, the answer is no. Good players who pull back on seeing a larger spotting round, not often.

I did specify 122mm or larger and I believe I mentioned that this would only work on an incautious (i.e. weak) player.

The conditions help as well - if the VL is in a village, comprised mostly of light buildings in otherwise open terrain, the player either takes the barrage, or retreats in open terrain, so you either cause casualties and significant suppression, or you get your opponent to leave the VL. the key is combing it with your other forces. Plus the 122mm module can be quite cheap (I've seen it as low as 94pts)

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Talenn:

...If so, then the PV of a particular item should accurately reflect is 'worth' on the QB battlefield completely independant of any 'historical' baggage. ...

but we've discussed before that each unit is worth more on some maps and less on others...

for instance, if the los is limited, then a bt tank with 76mm gun is probably a good deal... whereas an 88mm gun is probably a waste of points in limited los... on the other hand with long firing lanes the 88 is probably a good deal and the 76mm bt 'toast'

so if you truly want each unit to have a 'combat value' you have to take the mapboard and weather conditions into effect (weather affects los)...

you would probably also want to adjust the cost of heavy armor according to ground conditions

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Talenn:

What it really comes down to is 'Why do the Point Values exist?'. It certainly isnt to balance scenarios, because as has been pointed out repeatedly, they are completely unnecessary there. So, that leaves QBs. Dont Point Values exist to provide a 'balanced' game for QBs? If so, then the PV of a particular item should accurately reflect is 'worth' on the QB battlefield completely independant of any 'historical' baggage.

Talenn, regardless of your basic point, you are overlooking a critical element here. The criticism was about the rarity factor, not the base-point value. One could argue that the base point value is quite alright. So if your concern is balance, turn rarity off. Then you get a Soviet 152mm Howitzer spotter with 30 rounds for 136 points (June 43, South), and a German 150mm spotter with 25 rounds for 245 points. The German is a lot more responsive and has 15% more ammo, so that would account for the price differential I guess.

Whether he is worth his money is a completely different question, depending on the individual battle you fight.

BTW here is one beta-tester and senior poster (I am not at all in favour of the number of posts being shown!) who thinks that price is about the least of the issues with artillery.

[JasonC]

To flamingknives - fair enough. 122s are effective against troops in wood buildings, certainly. You might have to play "tag" a bit with a better player to use the second half of the module, since those tend to move to avoid incoming. But if MGs etc have cut off his routes out, it could be quite effective, I can see.

To Andreas - so, maybe the right solution to my problem, for now anyway, is just to agree to play with rariety off, if me and my opponent want to make elaborate fire plans affordable? It is not perfect, but as a workaround it isn't too bad I guess. Maybe we should combine it with some simple "rariety limits", like "besides arty, only take stuff +40 or lower", but without paying any point difference from the base value. I am open to suggestions, if you have others.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

BTW here is one ... and senior poster (I am not at all in favour of the number of posts being shown!)

Senior compared to whom?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

BTW here is one ... and senior poster (I am not at all in favour of the number of posts being shown!)

Senior compared to whom? </font>

[WineCape]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I haven't the time to really give this thread more than a once over, but I don't really understand where aree coming from when they say artillery is a waste of time. [snips]

One specific complaint from the original posting that I think deserves to be addressed is the wasteful way in which CM:BB artillery fires off rounds at the rapid rate while the FO is trying to adjust fire.

All the best,

John. </font>

[Redwolf]

So did anybody ever observed that adjust fire worked after the artillery fell off-target (with LOS)?

[The Dave Collective]

Originally posted by redwolf:

So did anybody ever observed that adjust fire worked after the artillery fell off-target (with LOS)?

I saw this once w/ CMBB v 1.0 with heavy arty. The FO had clear LOS (blue line). After seeing, the first dozen rounds go astray, I "walked" the targeting about 20 m (green line). After waiting another 2 min, the retargetted rounds went astray. It was way too late in the game to cancel the target and start anew so I let the arty fall. I found this behavior annoying but if this models the occasional real world F***ups, then ok. Unfortunately, I never saved the game. I have not seen this off-target shelling for a target w/clear LOS (blue targeting line) since this incident.

If I remember right, there was a thread describing this same behavior. I think BTS response was you have to cancel the arty mission and start anew. This really sucks when you have the big arty and loooonnnnng delays for a aquiring a "new" target. You really get penalized. Like I said above, if it models occasional real-world mistakes, then I guess I can live w/ it.

[Neutral Party]

I've now seen a few threads start up and fizzle out on the problems relating to adjusting off-board artillery and have never been able to find a definite answer on the best way to deal with it. I believe in the vast majority of cases the artillery arrives on-target or near enough that makes little difference. I have not examined this in any systematic way but my experience is when it arrives significantly off-target green-line readjusting does not bring it back on-target in contrast to what is stated in the manual. This is not a question of LOS. On the several occasions when it's happened to me the FO did have LOS and the relatively short time delay to recommencment of firing confirms this. I have previously sent game turns to Steve where this kind of problem occured and can only hope some attention is paid to it in the patch. Even a statement on the specific issue would be welcome. The net result of this behaviour when it occurs is an almost complete waste of ammunition. This thread seems to have headed off on a discussion of artillery pricing which, while interesting, is really another subject.

Joe