ARTY SUCKS!!!!!

[SFJaykey]

As a newbie with about a dozen batles (all vs AI) under my belt, I probably should just keep my mouth shut and listen, but I've learned a lot from following this thread and couldn't resist sharing my own impressions:

I agree the FOs don't seem to earn their money. After selecting a target for a tank or ATG, the player is not asked to correct aim for each round: that's the gunner's job. So why should we be doing the FO's job by manually adjusting fire?

If the FO has LOS when he calls the target, and a spotting round is dropped, shouldn't the battery just keep dropping spotting rounds until he has LOS to one? Is it realistic for the battery to FFE when the FO is still alive and hasn't seen the spotting round? Wouldn't the real-world assumption be that the unseen round was off target, and the _last_ thing they would do would be FFE?

It seems unfair, and reduces the effectiveness of artillery considerably, to demand the FO maintain LOS to target throughout the entire delay period, which is how it seems to work currently. If he has LOS when he calls the fire, and LOS when the spotting round arrives, he should be considered to have LOS. He shouldn't even need to see the spotting round itself: if he can see the target but not the spotting round, wouldn't he figure out that it was off and ask for another?

I'd like to see smoke, especially colored smoke, for spotting rounds, but that's an aesthetic issue and the mechanics a much higher priority.

Regarding the cost of artillery: I also find it somewhat high. I'm sure some of that is due to my own lack of skill in using it; for people who are skillful with using FOs and artillery it might be a good deal. But in general it seems too expensive: in QBs even the AI doesn't seem to buy much.

Maybe part of the cost problem is that (AFAIK) rarity and point values of artillery modules are dependent only on date (and maybe theater), and are the same for every type of scenario. Shouldn't it be much more likely for an attacker to get heavy artillery support in an assault scenario, compared to a ME for example?

Maybe the _solution_ to the cost issue is to remove off-map artillery from the unit purchase screen entirely. (For QBs only....scenario designers should have access) Just assign it based on date, theater, scenario type and size, with a small random factor as well for variety. Players could still pick their on-map artillery, but off-map modules would be assigned. This might take a small part of the fun out of unit purchase, but likely add some realism to the engagements.

Re: TRPs: they do seem like a great value now, but not quite as underpriced as Jason feels, since I find myself buying 4 or 5 in order to cover enough locations to have a good chance of actually using 1 or 2. Again, those more skilled at scoping the terrain probably get better value. And I agree, also, that in the interests of realism attackers should have access to TRPs, at least in Assault and Static situations. Though when one poster said that the battery would have a map, and they should just be able to fire at certain landmarks like crossroads, I don't think that's right: I'm sure the maps of rural Russia that were available to both sides in the 1940s were a lot less accurate than our maps today, and calling close artillery support based on them would have been a very risky proposition for frontline units. Actually, that is probably what the uselessly inaccurate fire out of LOS in CMBB is simulating: batteries firing blind based on inaccurate maps.

Well that's my $.02, which is probably what it's worth. Any comments welcome, and if any Battlefront folks read this, I hope they take it as constructive and not a knock on their outstanding efforts. Thanks and can't wait for 1.02!

- Matt

[SFJaykey]

As a newbie with about a dozen batles (all vs AI) under my belt, I probably should just keep my mouth shut and listen, but I've learned a lot from following this thread and couldn't resist sharing my own impressions:

I agree the FOs don't seem to earn their money. After selecting a target for a tank or ATG, the player is not asked to correct aim for each round: that's the gunner's job. So why should we be doing the FO's job by manually adjusting fire?

If the FO has LOS when he calls the target, and a spotting round is dropped, shouldn't the battery just keep dropping spotting rounds until he has LOS to one? Is it realistic for the battery to FFE when the FO is still alive and hasn't seen the spotting round? Wouldn't the real-world assumption be that the unseen round was off target, and the _last_ thing they would do would be FFE?

It seems unfair, and reduces the effectiveness of artillery considerably, to demand the FO maintain LOS to target throughout the entire delay period, which is how it seems to work currently. If he has LOS when he calls the fire, and LOS when the spotting round arrives, he should be considered to have LOS. He shouldn't even need to see the spotting round itself: if he can see the target but not the spotting round, wouldn't he figure out that it was off and ask for another?

I'd like to see smoke, especially colored smoke, for spotting rounds, but that's an aesthetic issue and the mechanics a much higher priority.

Regarding the cost of artillery: I also find it somewhat high. I'm sure some of that is due to my own lack of skill in using it; for people who are skillful with using FOs and artillery it might be a good deal. But in general it seems too expensive: in QBs even the AI doesn't seem to buy much.

Maybe part of the cost problem is that (AFAIK) rarity and point values of artillery modules are dependent only on date (and maybe theater), and are the same for every type of scenario. Shouldn't it be much more likely for an attacker to get heavy artillery support in an assault scenario, compared to a ME for example?

Maybe the _solution_ to the cost issue is to remove off-map artillery from the unit purchase screen entirely. (For QBs only....scenario designers should have access) Just assign it based on date, theater, scenario type and size, with a small random factor as well for variety. Players could still pick their on-map artillery, but off-map modules would be assigned. This might take a small part of the fun out of unit purchase, but likely add some realism to the engagements.

Re: TRPs: they do seem like a great value now, but not quite as underpriced as Jason feels, since I find myself buying 4 or 5 in order to cover enough locations to have a good chance of actually using 1 or 2. Again, those more skilled at scoping the terrain probably get better value. And I agree, also, that in the interests of realism attackers should have access to TRPs, at least in Assault and Static situations. Though when one poster said that the battery would have a map, and they should just be able to fire at certain landmarks like crossroads, I don't think that's right: I'm sure the maps of rural Russia that were available to both sides in the 1940s were a lot less accurate than our maps today, and calling close artillery support based on them would have been a very risky proposition for frontline units. Actually, that is probably what the uselessly inaccurate fire out of LOS in CMBB is simulating: batteries firing blind based on inaccurate maps.

Well that's my $.02, which is probably what it's worth. Any comments welcome, and if any Battlefront folks read this, I hope they take it as constructive and not a knock on their outstanding efforts. Thanks and can't wait for 1.02!

- Matt

[Dschugaschwili]

I can't test it right now because I'm at work, but here's a wild guess regarding arty falling off target even with LOS:

Maybe this could be related to the "0% exposure without a wall" effect. I mean those occasions where you get a blue LOS line, but an enemy infantry unit shows an exposure rating of 0%. Perhaps such a spot is considered unobservable for the arty spotter, so the target point is randomly shifted.

Somebody would have to test this.

Dschugaschwili

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The problem is, it is too expensive to buy shells in QBs to use the arty the way it ought to be used with these new, less responsive characteristics. A single light artillery module only pays for itself if it destroys a platoon of enemy infantry - completely. And with current levels of accuracy and responsiveness, that is only possible for TRP arty or against the AI.

When you purchase an arty battery, that player should expect it to route/destroy at least 1 1/2 platoons if not 2 whole ones. Otherwise, buying arty isn't worth the risk.

As of now, it's completely overpriced and not worth taking. With more tubes, it's also causing less firing missions which makes it even less useful because the shells are being used up in less turns. The bonus one gets for more shells falling in the area is next to none. Chances are, the target has already broken or whatever but you've used up quite a lot of shells in one firing mission to accomplish this.

Arty prices need to be adjusted for patch 1.02.

[PiggDogg]

Deadmarsh,

You are totally correct. Patch 1.02 should adjust the BB arty costs.

Cheers, Richard

[WWB]

Or maybe people should learn how to use it effectively.

There is one generally faulty calculation floating about this thread--worthwhileness of arty is just measured in point value of units destroyed.

Arty can do alot more than destroy units. It can provide key smoke screens, destroying nothing but LOS. A few well placed shells can destroy the key ATG that is delaying your advance. Or it can inflict a few casualties and shatter the morale of an advancing company. And those are but a few examples.

There is alot more to the usefulness of arty than simple destruction-per-shell calculations.

WWB

[imported_Wildman]

In regards to one request someone put out there. BTS would not want a "self-correcting" FO. If there was you would see the following post.

**WHAT THE F***! I called in an Arty strike and it was 100m off to the right and it landed just as a platoon of infantry left the tree line. It was in PLAIN SIGHT of the FO and the idiot "adjusted" it off of the target. In RL an FO would have left it where it was falling and Fired for Effect. ARTY SUCKS in CMBB!

See the dilemma BTS is in?

[JasonC]

I usually respect your opinions, wbb, because they are usually well thought out and seemed to be backed up by experience, rather than mere argument. But I found your last comments less than helpful. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if so you haven't shown it yet, here anyway.

You said "Or maybe people should learn how to use it effectively." That is entirely possible. It begs the question, do you know how to use it effectively? If so, care to share it with us, or are you just a tease?

I don't think I was any great slouch with CMBO artillery. I was a great advocate of its power and use. But CMBO artillery was godlike in the manipulations it allowed the player, and in addition it was one of the few aces against CMBO uber-infantry.

Neither is the case in CMBB. Good use of TRPs can approximate the first, for defenders, particularly with a few good FO types (German 105, 150, Russian 120). 8 minute or 15 minute delay times don't work.

Planned fire is the only clear game mechanics way to overcome those numbers, but it is in my experience singularly ineffective for the cost. (I can think of one other, "dancing" multiple FOs in very large fights, meaning calling missions on hunches and cancelling those not actually needed - but it is a lot of work and the payoff is marginal).

And there isn't any uber-infantry to counter. One tank or 2 HMGs in the right places can stop rushes. In CMBO, if your fat shells pushed the good order infantry odds to 2:1, even temporarily, you romped and nothing stopped you in time. Now 2 HMGs say "wait a minute", and the men you messed up live to rally.

Understand, nobody is debating whether a heavy arty strike can bust the men under it. It can. But busting platoons of the ordinary infantry is not as decisive as it was in CMBO. More things can do it, it makes less of a difference, and attacks are so much slower that such things get recovered from as a matter of course. They break if you look at them funny. Their only virtue is they rally, too, and penetrated tanks, expended FOs, and revealed=KOed PAK do not.

As for "taking out the key ATG", well. I've had luck taking out the key ATG with platoons of tanks. Sound contacts are poor aim points. Once they are fully IDed, they don't seem to me to live very long, arty strike or no.

Only the light mortars are responsive enough for this as the Russians. The 120s, at regimental level, have 5 minute delays. For the slow pace and predictability of present infantry advances, that is OK, especially if you have 2 to switch off targets between. But for a duel, a target of opportunity not expected before, it is hopeless. In that time you can bring up an on-map mortar and HQ, and do the job more cheaply and with a greater likelihood of success.

When you take an 82mm FO for this, it is for light suppression and smoke. It can't do much else. The small shells can pin people (they are fragile enough - the people I mean - these days). Against stealthy HMGs in trenches and the like, they are hopeless.

If you've read my actual recommendations on CMBB arty for attackers, they are to take a light something for smoke, and if you must take one (count 'em, one) of the largest caliber FOs with a reasonable delay (5 minutes or less) for smashing fire. Defenders, with TRPs, can use more stuff, certainly.

Wbb said, obviously referring to my cost and effectiveness comparisons, that the mistake was that "worthwhileness of arty is just measured in point value of units destroyed".

I consider this a straw man argument. I have addressed suppression, considering it a form of destroying, and included it in my estimates. Nobody so far has shown my estimates of the suppression you can expect from arty are off.

Shattering the morale of an advancing company can now be down by 2-3 MGs. And arty can only do it to advancing companies - i.e. as the defender i.e. with a TRP. Attackers get to guess where the defenders are without seeing anything, or order 8 to 15 minutes ahead of time (for anything that will hurt men in a trench), and then watch the defenders dodge when they see the spotting round.

Shattering the morale of advancing companies is no longer hard. It is outlasting them rallying and coming again, without running out of ammo, that is the CMBB defender's problem. FOs do it fine the first time (with TRPs) but run out of ammo.

As for "a few well place shells can destroy the key ATG", I agree. But well placed shells tend to be shells placed by direct fire, on the map. Off map shells tend not to be particularly well placed, and also take rather a long time.

The one place I can see this use actually working, is with German 150s, strung along in half minute snippets. Then if one lands close, you get your gun without high expenditure of ammo. The small types, which are the responsive types, if you fire only a few shells, just won't hurt anything. An HMG in a trench will take a full 76, a full 82, a full 122, and an airstrike, and be left 5-1 rattled but OK. It is wasteful in the extreme to bludgeon inexpensive point targets.

But enough of my practical quibbling. Out with it, wbb. Don't theorize about all the wonderful things arty can do for you, tell us how Russian heavy stuff on the attack can be used effectively. Or, tell us what Russian stuff to take on the attack, heavy or not, and how to use it effectively. Give an example where a QB strategy built around maximum available artillery power, that as his "long suit", can work for an attacker. You say we need to learn how to use it - fine, take us to school. Tell us how to use it.

Nobody is saying take none, so you don't even have the option to use smoke. But more than a light FO for that, explain how it will help an attack more than an extra platoon of medium tanks will.

[ January 29, 2003, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[flamingknives]

posted by: JasonC

Wbb said, obviously referring to my cost and effectiveness comparisons, that the mistake was that "worthwhileness of arty is just measured in point value of units destroyed".

I consider this a straw man argument. I have addressed suppression, considering it a form of destroying, and included it in my estimates. Nobody so far has shown my estimates of the suppression you can expect from arty are off

But then your descriptions of suppression seem to be based on routing squads or lasting effect. Artillery can have value when the suppression is only transient, but allows you to manuever your forces without sustaining heavy casualties.

[JasonC]

Is anybody reading what I write, or are knees just jerking on instinct? "Numbers, bah humbug!"

I counted the state of suppression achieved during the barrage as half of the figure for "value neutralized". The other half was value that remained neutralized 5 minutes later - causalties plus remaining pinned or worse. I averaged the "just after" and the "5 minutes later" effects.

I explicitly said that the vunerability of men while pinned was part of the reason for counting suppression this way. Because sometimes you can wade into them during their momentary pin, or it is all you need tactically, or you can follow up at least fast enough to prevent rally if they aren't reasonably quick about it, etc.

If an FO pinned 2 platoons, hit no one, and they recovered completely less than 5 minutes later, I would score that as "one platoon neutralized" - not zero, but also not 2. At end of barrage - 2 neutralized; at 5 minutes, none hurt; average, 1. If a heavy module left everyone who was still alive, broken or pinned at 5 minutes, even if only 1/3rd were actually hit, that counts as total annilihation.

Thus, long term breakage counts as death, and short term suppression counts halve as much as death. I am not ignoring suppression at all. That's what the darn things are for. I am not a CM artillery ignoramous, OK?

They still don't pay for themselves, unless you get picture perfect, AI quality targets, or stretch one module of the heavy stuff into 4-5 fire missions, every one of which messes up a platoon. With TRPs against men with poor cover, the heavy stuff in particular can be useful to defenders. With 8-15 minute delay times or a requirement to use pre-planned fire on locations that may be empty, or light and therefore responsive stuff used on trench quality cover or things close to it - which are the conditions QB attackers actually face - it is an entirely different story.

[ January 29, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Wisbech_lad]

Jason C.

It was always my understanding of the Eastern Front that “high” level Soviet arty was unresponsive, and useful only in set piece battles (prep fire, or a dug in unit that has surveyed the area & has lots of TRPs). To compensate, the Soviets developed direct fire HE support platforms (SU76 to JSU152 assault guns, IS2 tanks)

So, it is entirely realistic that in a QB (often a meeting engagement – i.e. in exploitation phase) that the Soviet player should be relying on DF HE support (buying an extra platoon of tanks/ AG’s), with only bn level organic arty (82 or 120mm mortars) being effective in the situation

So CMBB point values are forcing quasi historic usage of direct vs indirect HE support for Soviets, and calibre thereof, in a QB.

The horror, the horror.

[JasonC]

All QBs are not meeting engagements. Assault QBs are fought. I play them. In assault QBs, the Russians ought to be able to buy guns and use them. Yes, they ought to use them in fire plans. But they should not lose at the word "go" because of the price of those fire plans. You can't even order a fire plan or prep fire in a meeting engagement.

What I have proposed is wide targeting only "battalion" FOs, with more shells available for the price, but without fine discrimination in mission size, movement of aim points, etc. If adopted, then in assaults and attacks, the Russians would have the option of using artillery in an historical manner - in large, wide sheaf, battalion sized shoots. Without giving up so much in point terms, that they lose the maneuver battle afterwards by default.

Would somebody please tell me what is supposed to be wrong with this? Everyone so far has quibbled, erected straw men about what I was supposedly saying, told me arty is great, told me I don't know what I am doing, told me to suck it up and enjoy the fact that the large guns are ridiculously useless. Does anybody have anything substantive to say for or against the actual proposal? Does anyone else even remember what it was?

How about the "full minute", "no dodging", and "limited TRP" proposals? Any substantive criticism of those, or does anybody else like them? Is it pointless even to try to get anyone to think for more than two minutes about any of this?

Incidentally, it is not just the Russians. The Germans would have the option to use their 105s and 150s in a substantially different manner, one much closer to their actual use, particularly against large targets. That being sustained barrages into wide areas, rather than chasing individual platoons with nearly individual flights of shells. Right now they can't afford to do this; the shells are too expensive for anything but "scalpel" use.

[ January 29, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Wisbech_lad]

Jason C,

In assualt/ attack QB's I gamily get around this by buying multiple conscript arty for fireplans. Sort of gets you your "bn" shoot on target.

But I think you are also missing the point that prep arty fire without good intelligence is/was and should be almost valueless, unless you get lucky.

Operationally, the heavy arty would be better used for inderdiction purposes - at least dropping arty on a known crossroads is likely to mess up the other side movement - than dropped on a guessed at MLR. Join CMMCII!

I take this as a weakness of assualt/ attack QB's, rather than a weakness of arty points calculation. Unfortunately you are being ordered into a hasty assualt, without a detailed recon of the enemy positions. Well, it is called a quick battle...