Arty and "Wide" targeting

[JasonC]

This is something of a spin-off of the "arty sucks" thread, to present some test results using "wide" targeting orders with CMBB artillery. I also use it to grind my axe about my proposal to create "battalion FOs" for larger but less responsive fire missions, at a cheaper point cost per shell. I hope it is interesting to some.

In each of the trials, German FOs targeted a Russian infantry platoon in a wide area of scattered trees, aiming just inside the tree line in the right general area, but without exact knowledge of the Russian positions. The "shoots" were meant to simulate firing at a cluster of "stars" (recent past infantry contacts).

150x81mm wide, 6 rate, target a green Russian platoon (49 men including an ATR, HQ, 4 Squads, approximate size 75m by 50m) in scattered trees. -1 man. 1/2 pinned during fire. No remaining effect 1 minute later. Conclusion - target wide with a single 81mm battery is ineffective. Momentary effect - 50% effectiveness for 50% of a platoon, call it 25%. Effect after 5 minutes - 2% of a platoon. Average of the two - 13.5% of a platoon. Value neutralized 17 points (generous). Not effective for a 93 point module.

150x81mm tight, 6 rate, target platoon in scattered trees, good aim point, no evasion. -6 men, 18 broken - 1/2 platoon out of action immediately after barrage. 5 minutes later, 14 men out of action (casualties or failed to rally). Momentary effect - 1/2 a platoon. 5 minutes after - 30% of a platoon. Average of the two - 40% of a platoon. Value neutralized - 50 points.

300x81mm wide, 18 rate, target as previous. Not that I advocate "battalion fires" by light mortars, but I wanted to see what impact twice the shells had on "wide" performance. The result was -9 men, the bulk of the platoon panicked, 9 pinned and 2 OK at the end of the barrage. 2 minutes after, 14 men were OK, 18 pinned, 8 still in panic - so the platoon was still effectively suppressed. 5 minutes afterward, the 9 men hit are still gone, and 8 men are still pinned, the rest have recovered. Momentary effect - 96% of the platoon. Long term effect - 35% of the platoon. Average effect 66% of a platoon or 81 points, using twice the shells of the previous - but no longer completely ineffective, as with the first.

A single 105 battery firing wide at the same target hit only 2 men. But it did pin 3/4 of the platoon, and briefly panicked about half of it. Recovery was however immediate, with 2 men lost and half the platoon rattled, the only effects remaining 2 minutes after it ended. The momentary effect might be rated 75%, the long term 4% plus perhaps something for the rattling, call it 45% average of the two or 56 points.

Go up to the 150s and the result changes. They are powerful enough to use wide targeting against men without cover. The nearest chance hit will hurt seriously. 16 men were hit, 33 broken by such a long 150 wide barrage. 5 minutes later, 18 men had failed to rally. The entire platoon was thus neutralized at the time of the barrage, and 70% was out of action for a significantly longer period. Value neutralized, around 105 points. It should be noted that there was plenty of additional effect elsewhere, if the target were larger - though quite spread, as the 150s happened to come down.

Next I tried a simulated "battalion shoot" with 105s. That means 3 FOs, each 40 shells, overall twice the ammo at three times the rate, but target wide required and no adjustment of aiming point. The beaten zone is large. This barrage was comparable in effectiveness to the 150s, with 15 men hit, 27 red morale during the barrage, only 7 OK, or 86% out of action. 5 minutes after the barrage, 12 men still hadn't rallied, leaving the platoon about 45% strength. Average 70.5% of the platoon or around 87 points. There was not only a large effect outside of the platoon area, but it was reasonably uniform.

Last I tried a simulated "battalion shoot" with 150s, but this time with the target platoon dug in. This one was again effective, hitting 16 men, with most red morale, 8 pinned and 2 OK immediately after the barrage. After 2 minutes 12 were OK, and after 5 minutes 20 were. The immediate damage was thus 96%, the long term 59%, average 78% or about 96 points. So the extra shells fully neutralized the foxholes, compared to the lone battery 150 wide shoot discussed above. In addition, with more shells coming down overall, the coverage wasn't as spotty.

Next I ask about the efficiency of these various uses of artillery. Could they possibly afford to throw such weights of metal at platoon targets in the real deal? Of the above cases, I consider the 81s used "tight" on a well located target, the 105s used "battalion wide", and the 150s used either "alone wide" vs. relative exposed troops, or "battalion wide" against dug in ones, to be perfectly reasonable uses of artillery firepower, in historical terms. I think that is exactly the sort of thing they did, rather than playing "dodge ball" with tiny sheafs (for everything above light mortars). But is there any cross check on whether they could have gotten away with it?

There is ammo data. Used in the above fashion, 81mm is causing 6 casualties with 150 rounds fired. The Germans made about 75 million rounds of 81mm. Assume 4/5ths are used against the Russians - it might easily by 9/10ths, but be conservative. That is 400,000 CM modules worth, and at this efficiency would hit 2.4 million men. The Germans made 106 million rounds for the main 105mm type, ignoring less varieties of the same caliber. Same ratio gives 85 million vs. the Russians. That is 707,000 "battalion shoots", which at the above efficiency would hit 10.6 million men. Rather a lot, really. The Germans made around 27 million rounds of 150mm, giving 21.5 million at least to use against the Russians. That is enough for 200,000 of the "battalion shoots" at dug in targets, and another 214,000 "single wide" shoots at exposed ones. At the above efficiency, those would hit another 6.6 million men. Overall, these most common artillery weapons would account for about 20 million Russian casualties.

I think it is quite clear, therefore, that the Germans could afford such uses of artillery. It may be they used 105s in battalion shoots against dug in targets half the time - and lost say a quarter of that weapon's figure because of it. On the other hand, such battalion wide shoots sometimes would be aimed at whole companies or battalions, and hit twice as many men simply because there were more in the target area. What they certainly did *not* have to do is predict exactly which 60m wide north-south strip a given Russian platoon would be within 3-4 minutes from now.

Now, can one use artillery this way in CMBB, at present artillery prices? Maybe the heaviest, 150mm and larger FOs, say against a company sized target. But on the whole, no. If you rag out one platoon at the cost of 245 points (before rariety, and with a phone rather than a radio), you are behind even at attack odds. Sure, it might be critical to your plan, or multiply the value of some other arm locally. But even wading in and polishing off the busted platoon to a man (certainly feasible with the level of breakage the big calibers inflict), you are trading 2 for 1. The 105 result could be approximated by buying 2 105 FOs and firing all of both at side by side "wide" aim points. But will run you 296 points. If you smash two platoons and mop up efficiently, and have attack odds, you might break even.

At the existing prices and QB odds ratios, you can't really afford to shoot "wide". Again, with the possible exception of the heaviest calibers at the biggest targets, counting on each randomly placed firecracker to hurt something seriously, some of the time. If you find a whole battalion in the open within one "wide" sheaf, you can get away with it. What you can't do is shoot at a smaller, less numerous target and have "wide" and firing the whole module ensure you hit the thing, instead of micromanaging which little strip to put down the tight sheaf on, and making one FO last through 2-3 such targets.

I wish we could. And it is purely a matter of pricing. If the shells were cheaper, it would pay to use them in this "bludgeon" fashion. My proposal for the battalion FO and artillery price revisions would have the single modules 2/3rds of the present cost (but TRPs 5 times as expensive). And big FOs with 3 times the fire rate and twice the ammo of present single batteries (not for battalion mortars though), but only able to fire "wide", for the same price as the present batteries. So what would such prices do to the feasibility of uses of artillery like those above?

The lone 81mm module would cost 63 points, be responsive, but still basically want a point target. Above I got a calculated (crude) estimate of the impact on a platoon target, of about 50 points worth of "damage" - most of it in the form of momentary suppression, with half a platoon out of action immediately after the barrage - for about the same cost as half a platoon. The calculated "point exchange" is 1.25 to 1, well within even probe odds. And any extra value from fitting to plans, etc, might easily make that pay off.

The lone 150s would run 183, or the cost of a platoon and a half. It can easily rag out a platoon even firing wide, and may hit more if the target is bigger. The crude point calc puts the potential exchange ratio for wide fire at 1.74 to 1, right at "assault" odds, with larger targets etc able to make it pay better. The point being, you would not need to drizzle in a few 150s a minute on multiple "dodge-ball" locations to make the FO pay off.

The biggest change comes with the 105s, which used in the big wide barrage now cost 148 rather than 296. The calculated point exchange works out to 1.54 to 1, or about attacker odds, and right between the other two cost figured. Showing, I think, that the lower price is fair. It would also strongly encourage a much more historical use of the standard medium arty - at big targets, reasonably well located but preferably not too well dug in, with no worrying about 60m strips of this or that. If you wanted to attack a given phase line - village, large body of woods, hill - you would put a battalion FO's wide target order 100m beyond the start of the area and center of mass, and fire in a significant number of shells over the course of a few minutes, expecting to suppress most things in the whole area. And you would not go broke trying to do it.

The historical participants did such things, and did not go broke doing them. They did not play "dodge ball" with individual enemy platoons on half-minute time scales.

[PiggDogg]

Jason,

Good to see you back after your long (4 month or so?) absence.

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[Cogust]

Whoa, that's a REALLY long post there Jason.

There's a lot of analysis here based on, or at least it seems that way, the firing of ONE mission for each case and I don't think that you can take those results for facts as the sample is way to small. One can see tendencies though and it's no big susprise that 150mm shells kills much better than 105mm and 81mm shells.

Then there's some math regarding the total shells produced by the Germans and an estimate of Russian casualties based on the above tests and that the Germans fired ALL their ammunitions on platoon sized targets in woods and spread out exactly as in the tests above and with the exact same amount of ammunition above. That math is not very useful as it doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. I assume that you're doing this math to prove that CMBB artillery is wasteful, but I'd suggest you choose another line of reasoning as there's way too many guesses and assuption in this one.

The discusion about artillery in CMBB is more interesting though and battalion FOs sounds like an interesting concept indeed. But you continue to evaluate the efficiency of FOs by the amount of stuff it kills and this based on one test where you fired an ENTIRE ammo load on a platoon sized target.

1) No one that has played CMBB for a while will fire a full load on 105's at a single platoon, it's not worth it and you come to the same conclusion. But it often is enough to fie 10-12 shells at the platoon to get a decisive advantage in that firefight and you can then use the rest of the shells against other targets, this will make the FOs much more potent.

2) It's not how much you kill with each different weapon system that counts, it's what you achieve with you combined arms force that counts. You can't say that a FO is useless when it kills 50 points and costs 150 points or somefink(BTW, your opponent didn't get those 150 points as kill points, so you might argue that the FO has 50-0 in his favour), you have to count what your ENTIRE team did while supported by that FO. If you manage to suppress 2 platoons that could be mopped up later and you then managed to take 2 large VLs as well, then your FO did great even if it didn't kill one single man.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cogust:

If you manage to suppress 2 platoons that could be mopped up later and you then managed to take 2 large VLs as well, then your FO did great even if it didn't kill one single man.

Or even if you manage to move one of your own platoons into a better position while the enemy was suppressed by artillery, you still have come out ahead, if that platoon later defends a flank, rains enfilade fire on an enemy advance, or even further suppresses the enemy with a machine gun while the VLs are being fought over.

Cogust - excellent post on all points. The mathematical approach seems not to be of much benefit in these types of discussion, but I suppose they are necessary at some point. If one is going to have a point-based system on which purchase and victory conditions are based, then they are an unfortunate reality. Perhaps the new engine will base victory on mission achievement rather than artificial things like flags or casualty "points".

[ January 25, 2003, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Cogust]

Thanks Michael,

Mathematics has its uses in these kind of discussions at times (hell, I'm actually a matematician myself), statistics even more so, but you have to use them right and base your argument on numbers that's important and not numbers that's 'assumed', 'looks reasonable' or 'produces the results I want'. There are too many 'soft' factors to consider in this area (usefulness of artillery or lack thereof) to base any reasoning of 'hard numbers' as the numbers is only a fraction of the things that matters.

Victory points is a ticky issue and gamey by definition, but the only arithmetic that counts (sorry) is the addition of TOTAL VPs, not how much your sniper/FO/tank killed compared to the unit cost. Then you could say that every unit that didn't die was worth it's cost as it broke even or better and that every unit that died was a waste as it most often than not didn't score enough points, by this faulty reasoning you must come to the conclusion that FOs are the BEST units as they almost never die and even if they do they only give away a fraction of their cost in VPs. But Jason is arguing in the other direction and his arguments are less than convincing as he use fuzzy numbers while ignoring all the other aspects.

[Apache]

I'm not sure the numbers are being given to prove the points made by the tests are they? Is it not a case of saying that this is what the tests show (AND arguing how CMBB can perhaps best be used to reflect historical deployment) and then trying to equate that type of game and real life usage to the type/number of munitions produced? Surely if the result of game or real usage would, in aggregate lead, to the use of 10x the number of rounds produced it would indicate that such use is innacurate.

Figures aside, I do think the 105 modules are too expensive in CMBB to allow players who WISH to play with a degree of historical accuracy to do so. Given the availability of 105s over 150s the information above does confirm what I have thought for some time (but have never had the time/inclination to test):

81s are not too effective (I recently dumped 225 81 mm into approx 75m x 75m of 'Scattered Trees' which contained a platoon of well spotted troops, a Maxim or two and two AT guns - result, zilch).

105s are OK at Bn strength against relatively open targets (but CMBB cost makes historical use prohibitive resulting, IMHO, in atempts to use 'sniper' precision fire in chasing platoons around a battlefield). Low cost of TRPs creates the potential for players to have too many accurate plots identified for the numbers of 105 FOs they have which can, IMO, lead to the balance of targets being too much in favour of 'non-spotted' areas as opposed to 'spotted' concentrations of troops.

and that 150s are perhaps closest to modelling (in terms of cost and effect) their real-life counterparts BUT, their lack of availability makes over use historically innacurate.

I also wonder whether there is a need to limit the number of TRPs you can buy per FO dependant on type of mission in addition to upping the price (whether or not the cost of some FOs come down). I have seen some PBEM results with two FOs on the defence having 15+ TRPs? I am not sure what historical data there is to confirm my thoughts, and I am not an Arty expert, but it does seem rather high. I usually work on the basis of 1-2 TRPs per FO on the attack and max 3-4 on defence, less for 150s.

Also, in terms of 1 -2 company level actions, what 'real life' consequences would this have had for commanders (for those wishing to be historically as correct as possible). Would 1 company really expect to get bn level 105 support? If not would the 'request' to allocate, given the poor effect, just 1 105 FO have been approved or would it have been considered a wasteful use of arty? Presumably the expectation of 150 support at company level would, on the same grounds, also be rare?

[ January 26, 2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[Andreas]

Likelyhood of having an Abteilung or Battalion in support.

It depends (wow, what a surprisingly relevatory answer ), I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule.

In 1941 and 1942, if you are dealing with mobile/armoured operations by a German Kampfgruppe of about regimental size, you would expect it to have an Abteilung to support it, either schwer (8x150, 4x100mm K18) or normal (12x105). Because doctrine was to use these KGs in a concentrated fashion, you could expect a lot of this at the point of breakthrough. There is a strong possibility that quite a few of the guns would be used in DF mode though, especially in highly mobile operations earlier on, when ATGs were not quite up to the job.

Things are different if you look at infantry divisions strung out across the frontline. Because of the rather short range of the German guns, and the long frontages that the divisions covered (up to 30+km in Army Group Centre just before Bagration), it would be difficult to make this sort of support available, because the guns needed to be strung out across the frontline too.

So, for a company sized attack I doubt you would see a lot of artillery (mortars are different), especially not in a flexible manner (different if you restrict it to pre-bombardments). if you are looking at what is in effect the or one of the main efforts of a division attack, you can expect a fair bit of support, and a battalion spotter would be a good idea.

I generally like the idea. It is going to make life a lot more exciting for players, because where they now may get 4 spotters, they would only have one, with the increase of risk that comes from putting all your eggs in one basket.

[JasonC]

Apache has understood most of what I was driving at. Apparently I've been decidedly less than clear to Cogust, however. I will explain, and answer his comments point by point.

Yes, I know not every German arty round in the war in Russia was fired at a platoon sized target. The cross check is about whether this particular use of arty is so wasteful the Germans could not afford to engage in it. The answer is "no". In fact, the calculations show that the *average* effectiveness of German shells fired was around the same level, and certainly not higher, than this use. ("This" meaning wide at one platoon, whole module levels of ammo expenditure).

Of course some missions are more effective per round fired. Others are less. If you catch an entire battalion in a tight area without cover, you hit lots of people per shell fired. If you fire a night harassment mission that just keeps people awake, or shell a crossroads to slow movements, you might hit nobody.

But the *average* German artillery mission did not hit 3-5 times as many men per shell as in my tests. Because the Russians did not take 60-100 million casualties from artillery fire. These missions, with an ID platoon target and generally accurate fire, were at or above the threshold of what the Germans actually managed to fire, in pay off "efficiency".

And yes, I know that people who have played CMBB "for a while", or for that matter who have played CMBO, do not typically fire a full 105 module at a platoon of infantry. That is exactly the problem. Players micromanage their artillery fire in tiny droplets, trying to squeeze maximum effectiveness from a miniscule shell supply. The real participants were much more likely to have a battalion of 105s shell one enemy position simply because there were known enemy there, and it was a chance to hurt them - where a CMBB player is likely to drop 12-16 shells, and try to make a single battery handle 4-5 targets in one firefight.

Why is the CM player doing this? Because, from the standpoint of CM QB point totals, it is "a waste" (in Cogust's own words) to fire "a whole 105 module" (let alone 2-3) at "just one platoon". Why is it a waste? It doesn't kill the 105s, or the FO.

It is a waste because after the ammo is expended, your combat power is 148 points worth weaker than before the ammo was expended. "That's silly, my combat power isn't weaker just because I fired". Oh? Well, I didn't take a 105mm FO. I took an extra infantry platoon, or a long Pz IV.

I didn't get the impact of the barrage, but I have a larger maneuver force. Is your situation better than mine, or worse? Depends on how much bang you got for your 105 FO buck (and, naturally, how much I get from my tank or infantry). If you hit 2 men and suppressed half a platoon for 2 minutes, chances are you aren't ahead.

Yes, I know that men "killed" are not the only consideration. If you didn't notice, I counted men still pinned or worse 5 minutes after the barrage lifts, as dead. And I counted anyone pinned or broken right after the barrage, as half as good as dead - because you can wade in and kill them often enough, and they aren't working for the other guy at a time of your choosing, etc. That is where my "points neutralized" figures came from - the average of (killed plus suppressed at barrage end) and (killed plus suppressed 5 minutes later). Which is not "just killed".

Why is such a calculation needed at all? Obviously, if you hit a tiny portion of the enemy force with all of yours, you can bust it. Without assuming any great skill on either side, often one can trade things off, too. But arty has this quirk, that you pay for the ammo and once you use it, its gone. A Pz IV can kill a T-34 and remain a fire-spitting Pz IV. A 105 module that rags out a platoon (or two) does not remain a fire spitting 105 module very long.

"But you can milk it for 4-5 fire missions". You can milk it for 4-5 little driblets, especially if you play "dodge ball" and guess exactly which patch of trees that platoon will be under 45 seconds from now. But this is not what individual firing batteries typically did. It is what CM players typically *have* to do, in QBs anyway where they pay through the nose for a limited shell budget. They then try to "game" the game system's arty flexibility to make the overpriced, rationed shells pay.

Apache wondered if individual companies, or pairs of companies, could get fire by whole artillery battalions. The answer is yes. The battalion was the standard unit that fired in support of one area or position. Battalions rarely split their fires simultaneously, unless the frontage was extremely wide and the batteries had to be widely seperated to cover it. Instead, they'd fire in support of call A for 15 minutes, then respond to call B, etc. Generally all from units in the same KG or regiment the battalion was supporting.

This was especially true on the attack, in fire plans and the like. Single batteries were still used for point targets, like counter-battery fire. But the ordinary field guns firing at the ordinary enemy defensive positions, would fire whole battalion shoots. Important targets would sometimes get the attention of several battalions. The ability to mass fires and to shift them merely by changing allocations, was the great power of the artillery. *Not* the ability to put 4-8 shells on this precise tree in that precise 30 second window.

What I want to see is less "gamey" use of artillery in tiny bits, micro-managed. In favor of much more straightforward use of it in large amounts. I call the first "scalpel" and the second "bludgeon". I want cheaper bludgeon artillery, restricted from using the game capabilities that let it act as a scalpel instead.

Thus the battalion FO proposal. Only "wide" targeting, no point-target tight sheaf. Only the entire module fired from start to finish - *a* barrage, not 4-5 sniping missions. It can be prep fired, planned for a time on turn 1, ordered normally with delay, or shot at a TRP - while remaining "wide", in each case. It can be cancelled if the shells haven't begun to fall. But it cannot be moved - once it starts, it runs until the ammo is gone, and is done.

In return for all of those restrictions, which are meant to prevent "scalpel" misuse of the new artillery mission type, the shells are cheaper. You get 3 times the firing rate, and twice the ammo, for the cost of one battery today. (I also want the standard batteries cheaper by a third. The two proposals are seperable, however).

If you have cheaper shells, you *can* afford to fire module sized missions of 105s at targets like platoons. With the restrictions, you *can't* use those cheaper shells to do twice as much scalpel work.

The target wide tests are meant to illustrate the level of fire effect that would typically be seen from such a new artillery option. People rarely shoot "wide" now, because the shells are too expensive to justify it. It takes a lot of shells to make up for a wide sheaf, compared to precision targeting. But precision targeting is hard in its own ways, as well as gamey and unrealistic in its own ways. The tests show that with cheaper but wide only FOs, it *would* pay to use artillery in "bludegon" fashion.

Which just incidentally, was the way it was actually used, for the most part.

[KursruK]

Battalion, regiment, army, corps.

Does anyone know how these influence the arty?

[Andreas]

Tigger, what exactly do you mean?

[KursruK]

I mean, how does "command level" (i.e. battalion, regiment, army, corps) actually affect the arty in practice? Is it a benign classification? I doubt it. All of the numbers mean something in cmbb. just want to know this one.

[ January 26, 2003, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: tigger ]

[Andreas]

Basically, the higher you go, the more unresponsive the artillery becomes. I.e. the delay increases. Manual p.131

[JasonC]

In case the implicit references in both my preceeding posts to averages and what they mean are still confusing, I will put them into English propositions instead of math.

1. Some might have the idea that it is too inefficient to fire whole modules of shells, wide targeting, at targets the size of a platoon. They might get this idea, among other possible places, from CM QBs.

2. Some might imagine that since CM QBs are obviously perfectly realistic, that anything inefficient in a QB right now must have actually been inefficient. And anything too inefficient to try in a QB, too inefficient to actually do in the war.

3. Anyone who thinks each of the above, ought to admit that it implies that a cut off against inefficient artillery use occurs somewhere between the level where it pays to shoot in CM QBs, and whole modules wide at one platoon.

4. That implies that missions with higher expected effect than whole modules wide at single platoons actually got fired, and ones with lower expected effect did not - as a rule, anyway, with perhaps limited "outlier" exceptions.

5. But that implies something about average losses inflicted per shell fired. It implies it is high. If better targets than single platoons are being fired at, with less overkill, less wasted firepower on empty space around the target, etc, then men hit per shell fired will be higher than in wide full modules at lone platoons.

6. But we know from ammo vs. loss figures, that the average men hit per shell fired was -not- higher than in full module wide at lone platoon missions. Very crudely, it is not the case that every shell had to hurt somebody, let alone more than one. Shells expended are an order of magnitude larger than all losses.

7. In fact, full modules wide at lone platoon position use of artillery in CMBB, gives average or above average results in men hit per shell fired, compared to average historical shells expended.

8. You can of course fire missions better and worse than an average. An average is just an average. But all fire missions cannot be *above* average. It cannot be the case that missions that produced the average result, could not be afforded because they were too inefficient.

9. In fact, since some missions are certainly above the average in losses per shell fired, others must be below it. Wherever the cut off occurs that says "you can't possibly afford to fire that mission", it is below the average level of losses per shell fired, not at or above that average level.

10. Wide targeting with light mortars, or without enough shells and with only medium caliber guns, *is* inefficient - maybe even inefficient enough that it may fall below such a threshold. You can expend an entire FO and hit 1-2 men, suppressing half a platoon momentarily, nothing further.

11. It is not certain even *that* is below any such threshold. But if you fire 81s tight, or 105s wide but with a battalion (2x shells, 3x rate), or the heavy calibers wide even alone - you certainly are not under any such threshold, compared to the historical average effect of artillery ammo expended.

12. If such use of artillery *is* under a "feasibility" or "efficiency" threshold in CM QBs, then an ordinary historical use of artillery, that was not prevented by considerations of "inefficiency" or "waste", *is* prevented in CM QBs, at present artillery prices.

13. Present artillery prices are set to try to balance "scalpel" use of FOs, against other assets like tanks, infantry, etc. That is why you see scalpel use, love of and demand for TRPs, "dodge ball", etc. To make them pay in CM terms, you must use the rounds as accurately as possible.

14. On its face, the efficiency "cut off" for fire missions is higher in CM QBs than it was historically. There may be balance justification for this in the power micro-managed, "scalpel" use of artillery can bring - particularly with TRPs. But "bludgeon" uses of arty are being "priced out", when historically they were normal.

By now, anybody who can possibly be bothered to read all of this, knows why proposed solution to it. It is probably unrealistic to hope such a change might actually be made to CMBB. But if people agree it would be a good thing, close approximations to it ought to be possible - certainly in scenarios, possibly in QBs. Point totals can be "padded" to adjust effective prices, and uses restricted without "hard coding", by mutual agreement. Etc.

Whew. Now I will shut up about this, and listen to what others think of it.

[Apache]

Have I got the right idea then? If a CMBB battle involves a company, or even more a battalion, it would be highly likely to get bn strength arty support in 105s (3 - 4 FOs?) AND would generally target known troop positions with full loads (that tends to be what I do at the moment). OR it MAY get 150 support and either get 2 x 150 FOs and no 150 (or perhaps one) OR 1 x 150 and 1-2 105s.

I'd also be interested in views on the TRPs too, so I can at least restrict my own use of them in the meantime. OR am I penailsing myself needlessly? Their cost seems to enable players to scatter them like confetti when in relaity I am not sure whether so many pinpointed targets would be acquired. I accept that on the defence (particularly of long duration) there are likely to be more (hence I 'allow' 3-4 per FO) but surely not on the attack.

I personally prefer to limit as much to historical accuracy as possible and generally, by mutual agreement, devise 'rules' to restrict 'unhistoric' use, such as micro arty firing. generally players I play expect a barrage once it starts and ask questions if they only get 10 rounds (as do I). I would hope the new game re-write would offer either this as a revision or as one of many historical option switches. Perhaps there should be an overall historical switch and a 'gamey' switch.

I do think the TRP issue also needs to be covered on both attack and defence if arty is to 'governed' effectively.

Interesting posts.

[ January 26, 2003, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[Cogust]

Ouch, two more long posts by Jason.

Well, battalion spotters is an interesting concept as i said before and it would be fun to see them in the game at some time. But I'm not sure that each battalion expended all their available ammo at one target and especially not on something as small as a measly platoon, it would be much better if each spotter could choose between battery fire (as you do in CM today) and battalion fire (more like the way you propose) so that you can distinguish between targets.

I would hate to waste all my ammo on a low priority target and I'm sure the FOs are trained to estimate the force they have to use to get a certain effect. Battery fires could then perhaps only use a part of the total ammo as the rest is kept with the battalion's other batteries.

When I was in the military we only fired artillery for short bursts on most targets as most damage were done in the first minute as the lethality of the barrage was much lower when the enemy had taken cover. I believe this was known in WWII as well and hence 'dodgeball' is not that anunreasonable way of using artillery, fire a minute on the spotted enemy and then cancel to fire again on another target (or the same once again). A larger target could then justify the use of a battalion fire (wide and triple the rate), but I still think that we should be able to cancel the mission as I doubt that each artillery battalion was only able to fire one mission per engagement.

The discussion about the pricing of artillery in CMBB is a completely different issue and here I think you're wrong. You seem to think 'dodge ball' is wrong and gamey and that you can't get your money's worth out of you artillery if you're not using that technique. Reducing the cost of the artillery will move the game closer to CMBO where artillery was king and everyone brought rediculous amounts of artillery to each and every QB and that's not something I want.

In my view CMBB presents a situation where you have to THINK about how much artillery you will buy, what types and for what mission. This is GOOD and if some people don't think that artillery is worth its cost, then they don't have to buy it. There are people around (including me) that thinks artillery is priced fairly and we will end up buying even more if the price is reduced as it's too good to miss out on. Do I max out on artillery when I play QBs? Nope, I buy a couple of spotters but I rarely max out on artillery as I feel that a more balanced force will perform better than a force heavy on artillery (in CMBO it was the other way around). The only time i max out on artillery is when I attack and then I buy plenty of low quality, heavy artillery FOs to be used as pre planned bombardments. Is that stupis of me? Maybe, but I haven't seen anything to complain about this far.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Apache:

Have I got the right idea then? If a CMBB battle involves a company, or even more a battalion, it would be highly likely to get bn strength arty support in 105s (3 - 4 FOs?) AND would generally target known troop positions with full loads (that tends to be what I do at the moment). OR it MAY get 150 support and either get 2 x 150 FOs and no 150 (or perhaps one) OR 1 x 150 and 1-2 105s.

Adrian,

I think it is more a question of 'if they have artillery support, it would be in BN strength'. More likely they don't get any support at all

But e.g. for a soviet attack outside a major breakthrough area they are likely to have no indirect support at all, but would get 76mm regimental and maybe divisional guns, as well as 45mm in direct fire support.

[Apache]

I'm not sure discussion = complaining. If people don't want to modify or regulate the way artillery is purchasable or the way they use it - fine. Some do.

Andreas, accept that (only around 1 in 3-4 of my infantry battles do I give them arty), should have made that clear. My main concern is getting the balance right for SS Pz Gr Inf Bn (Arm) and Heer Infantry (non bn) both of which I may deploy only 1-2 companies of at a time, sometimes the whole bn. :confused:

[ January 26, 2003, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[Cogust]

Well to respond to your other post where you claim that a Panzer IV lang is better than a 105mm FO, what happens if your Panzer bogs right at the start, or if it gets shot to pieces long before it gets to fire its main gun? Am I, with my 105mm FO, in a better or a worse position than you? Such discussion is plain silly as you in the end will ahve to compare how the entire combined arms team performed over a series of QBs as plain bad luck can derail even the most careful plan at times.

You still seem very focused on measuring things such as how much you can pin, kill, break with a weapon to determine how much it shoulc cost. My opinion is that it's very hard to do these things as your tests are taken out of context and are very 'sterile' and hence won't give much valuable information on how much VPs an FO can give you in a typical QB. A quick fire by an 81mm spotter can break up a threatening attack, forcing the enemy to go to ground and by that save your platoon/tank/whatever from getting killed and it still only scores two guys. How many VPs did this spotter earn you/deny your opponent? A lot more than what it killed or pinned in any case as it saved the butt of one of your units that would certainly been killed.

And I really doubt that supporting 2 companies of infantry with en entire artillery battalion were anywhere close to the norm, just compare the numbers of infantry companies and artillery battalions to each other and you'll see. CMBB will produce QBs with reasonable amounts of artillery as people can't bring along the maximum amount possible if they want if they want to stay competitive. And try to use actual quotes when you're quoting me, don't make pseudo quotes as that will only confuse the discussion (I have never used the word 'milk' on these boards).

[Apache]

Equally, neither Andreas or I were suggesting that Bn level support was the NORM for 2 companies. I think the point was, where a company or more has arty support AND a fairly critical mission they are likely to get arty support above battery level. If that critical, bn level. Personally I find the use of just 1 105 FO in support of an infantry company or two somewhat 'strange'. If the mission were not that critical I'd suggest they'd be more likely to have none than 1 (except of defence for counter-battery).

Edited because I left out 'somewhat strange'

[ January 26, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[Cogust]

Apache,

Right, I was only responding to Jason where he seemed to imply that it would be the norm to support 2 companies with a battalion of infantry. Support WOULD mostly come in battalion sizes when any support was at hand, but seeing battalion sized spotters in every QBs isn't very realistic. In some it's more than justified, but I don't want a situation where a battalion of artillery is the norm for a medium sized QB.

A cool thing would be to be able to buy more artillery as the battle went on if you spotted some really good targets. This would cost VPs but would simulate the FO getting access to more batteries/shells that's reserved for big targets. The Brits were especially good at this and every FO had the opportunity to fire the entire divisional artillery when they got a target big enough to justify it. That would be very cool, I mean totally sweet.

[JasonC]

Oh, now I think I get it. Cogust thinks I haven't the slightest idea, and only think about half a dozen tests I've run. No, Virginia, I picked the tests to illustrate something, which I already know from combined arms experience using (and avoiding) the stuff.

In fact, the whole subject was first prompted by seeing in practice what a waste it is to blow points on large prep fires, or similar "bludgeon" artillery roles, under QB budget constraints. "Seeing in practice" means things like total victories defending against attacks equipped with more than 1000 points of Russian heavy arty with less than a company of defenders on a front of 500 yards. No, not against the AI, against an expert human player.

Cogust says a quick 81mm barrage will "break up an attack". By the AI maybe. Makes me wonder what world he is living in. 2 HMGs will delay an attack, provided there is any open ground involved - and they won't expend themselves doing it, and they cost half as much, and after words the infantry they entertain will be worse off than they are.

81mm will muss the attacker's hair, remove themselves from the equation by expending their ammo, and leave the infantry saying "thank you sir! may I have another?" If your combined arms defenses feature 81mm for this, try dropping the wimpy FO for 4xHMG and watch your performance improve. Don't talk about it, try it.

As for the silliness of maybe the Pz IV will bog, maybe pigs have wings. If you fire a lone 105 module wide sheaf, you won't do diddly and you can count on it. The expected value of the tank, unless you are completely incompetent, is an equal exchange with an enemy one. Yes, there is a variance in that - sometimes you get him clean, sometimes he gets you. If it blows up infantry instead, it will get to dump its HE load and half its MG ammo, and will in the process take out far more men than a wide 105, and pin more as well.

This shows only that using a 105 wide is a waste compared to taking the tank. It does not say using a 105 as a scalpel on TRPs etc might not work out for you - it well might. That you compare firing a 105 wide at a platoon target to a tank bogging illustrates the point nicely - it is in fact so inefficient at present QB prices that it is akin to throwing a tank away at the start line. The problem is, that is a perfectly historical use of supporting 105 fire.

Then you wonder how every front line company could have a battalion of guns fire in support of it, when there are more front line companies than battalions of guns. Simple - the guns don't die firing a mission in support of somebody. It takes them all of 15 minutes. A division has 3-6 battalion sized arty groups (counting heavy mortars for Russians, etc). The firing time is a trivial consideration - it is easy to schedule in way more than enough to "service" everybody, if the ammo is there.

A battalion could fire in support of each front line company every 2 hours at the utmost, in some deployments every 30 minutes. If they have to cover every one, which often they won't need to do. What artillery regiment commanders, arty kommandos, or divisional artillery commanders did for a living was dance the assignments to cover the hot spots in an ongoing battle, in sequence.

Sector A looks worst, so 2/3rds of the division's guns fire there for an hour and break up that attack. Then they spread out to handle the others, by just cranking in a new deflection. Or on an attack, the point of main effort or breakthrough sector gets the higher echelon (corps etc) fires for a 30 minute prep, then they switch to counterbattery fire and "go deep". It is not "arty battalions" that need to pair up with front line companies or battalions, it is "arty battalions times hours".

Then you imagine that the battery is expending all *its* ammo on one target, if a whole module is fired. Um no. It is expending all the ammo it assigned to supporting your little 15 minutes of fame, today. Not all the ammo it has. Ammo just wasn't that scarce, not compared to Russians to fire it at.

Compared to the available firing time, it still -was- scarce. Nobody could afford to fire all guns all day. Which just shows that firing assignments were not the bottleneck, and it was ammo, not shooters, that was being allocated among the front line sectors and units.

How many fire missions worth of ammo did the Germans have overall, for Russia? Around 650,000 150mm modules, 1.5 million 105 modules, 500,000 81mm modules. What portion of Russian losses were due to shellfire? Maybe 50%. 70% is the usual figure for all forms of shrapnel, counting direct fire HE from guns and tanks, bombs, grenades, etc.

If a 150mm FO in CM gets 20 men, is it an "outlier" on the high side, or on the low side? What of a 105 module that gets 10 men? But each of those, as an average performance, could account for all Russian arty losses. Together they'd account for all of them twice over.

Does it still make sense to take arty in CMBB? With TRPs on defense, or the big calibers if they are reasonably "reactive", sure. German 150s are powerful. With TRPs, all the medium stuff is fine for defenders. In both cases, micro-managed to stretch the scarce shells; you have to get a lot of mileage out of e.g. 35x150 to make them worth ~250 points. The light stuff just sucks for HE missions (for smoke it is fine).

As for Apache's question about TRP usage, it is not that TRPs are difficult or expensive to set up in reality. It is just that they were not used as a means of rationing shells, because shells weren't scarce. When a registration covers a 200 by 200 meter beaten zone, how many do you need to defend one sector? 2-4 will generally suffice; maybe twice that if you are nearly surrounded or something. You don't register on every bush because you aren't planning on throwing only 10 shells at that location.

You pick the few large bodies of cover where enemy are expected to gather in front of your position, especially dead ground locations, and register on those. When you call a concentration, you expect that whole area to become a decidedly unpleasant place. Then the trick is just timing *the* FFE order to truly break the attack, not tracking a dozen enemy micro-targets and chasing them with individual volleys.

CM players exploit cheap TRPs to ration expensive shells by registering on every bush. They think of a TRP as a 40x80 meter "artillery minefield", because only the center of the tightest sheafs gives the concentration of effect CM pricing seems to require to make the shooting pay. The real participants simply weren't under any such requirement, and did not bother multiplying points of aim to put 12 105 shells here or 8 150 shells there.

CM has the size of the arty modules pretty close to correct. Some missions might be fired with half of one FO, others by all of the ammo from 2 of them. That is the right range for the "discreteness" of barrages. What CM players do that is unhistorical on this front is use half-minutes of fire on each tiny target, to stretch one FO into 4-6 mini-missions.

Part of that is an adaptation to "dodging". The full minute of fire that historically would be shot (at a minimum) after the initial half-minute, occurs after a human player knows what area will be hit and how hard, if he stays where he is. The actual participants were much less likely to run away from the beaten zone in that minute - they hugged the earth instead.

If a CM player didn't *know* it was going to be a tight sheaf (and the axis, even), they wouldn't rely on running away so much, either, because you don't get away from the larger beaten zones of a realistic (think target "wide") barrage. Try running 200 meters before the next flight arrives, instead of 50. Try it with 3 times the rate of fire. Doesn't work so well, does it?

Right now people only "ride it out" if (1) it is light caliber (2) they are in stone buildings or trenches (3) routes away are cut off by direct fire or (4) they just guess, in "head game" fashion, whether the enemy will choose to expend a full minute, or check the fire after the first half-minute, aka "is he bluffing or does he mean it?" None of which is historical.

Would players max out artillery if the had battalion FOs? I think they'd choose - sometimes their overall plan would be dependent on a barrage and they'd spend an infantry company or tank platoon's worth on high ammo FOs. But they would not be able to fine tune and "stretch" them - they'd get "bludgeon" behavior. Sometimes they'd rely on winning the armor war and more surviving tanks - it is hard to take out a tank platoon with an artillery prep fire. Arty would be part of the paper scissors rock equation, instead of a modest suppliment.

You'd certainly see more use of prep fires and fire plans. Right now, if as Cogust says he regularly does, you take a battalion's worth of unresponsive large FOs and fire them all off at the word "go", you basically just throw away half your attacker odds. Oh, you will kill a platoon of defenders or so. But the remaining odds in the actual maneuver fight will be 1100 to 900 instead of 1500 to 1000. Fastest way there is to lose a QB as the attacker.

[JasonC]

Here is a set of possible "gentleman's agreements" to avoid the most unrealistic micro-managed uses of artillery in CM. Jason's "no dodge ball" artillery rules, for those who choose to use them. If you don't like them, don't use them.

1. You may cancel an FO target or change the point of aim at will *before* a full volley has been fired, while the timer is still running down to zero the first time, after spotting rounds, etc.

2. But once a full "flight" has been fired, you may not change the point of aim, or cancel the mission, until a full minute of fire has been shot at that location. This is in addition to any partial minute of fire already delivered.

#2 includes fire at TRPs, missions that land off target, it even includes "friendly fire" incidents. Conceptually, this is the minute of confusion in which Sgt Barnes finds and bitch-slaps the green Lt before bellowing "check you fire, check your fire" into a handset. And the rule prevents stretching any one FO into an unrealistic number of tiny fire missions.

3. Once the full minute of fire has been delivered, you may alter the aim point, cancel the mission, "walk" the barrage 100 meters, etc, just as you please. But if a half minute of fire again results, you again must follow it up with a full minute of fire with the aim point stationary.

Notice that #3 also prevents endlessly holding the guns poised above somebody's head like the sword of Damocles, forever threatening to fire with the time short, never actually doing so, etc. If you time a mission for about turn 8 and change your mind, you are either going to have to cancel it sooner than then, or actually fire something.

4. The maximum number of TRPs you may buy as a defender in a QB is artillery points spent divided by 100. You may always take 1 TRP, even if you buy no arty (e.g. to use as a "boresighted" ambush point). In assaults, add 1 TRP to the allowance. In probes, round any fractions down.

5. Attackers do not get TRPs. Use a fire plan instead - the fire will be accurate, but scheduled ahead of time rather than ordered with split second timing.

Those restrictions on artillery use remove the worst elements of CM arty micromanagement. But in return, the guy being shelled is limited in his responses to being shelled. The spirit of the following rules is that active "dodging" is not allowed once the shells have actually begun to fall. Follow that spirit if you find yourself in an ambiguous situation under the letter of the rules.

When infantry is near incoming indirect artillery fired in the previous minute, its movement orders are restricted. You may not change those orders at will. Instead -

6. You may continue the movement orders with no changes. No waypoint adjustments, no speed adjustments. If you think you will get clear of the barrage on the existing orders before it hurts you, or that the shelling is so light you can walk through it, you may continue - just don't touch anything. If the men pin because of the shellfire, they pin; if they don't, they keep moving. The game system resolves the issue, not your godlike intervention.

7. You may instead at your option order the troops under the shelling to "halt". No new movement order may be given them, but the existing ones may be cancelled. If you think you will stop short of the barrage, or just want to ride it out in the cover you are in without being caught moving, you may. Conceptually, the men hit the deck and pray. They are not listening to further orders, consulting maps, having long meaningful conservations amidst the din.

8. If arty fell the previous minute, these options remain in effect. Only after a minute in which no arty lands nearby, can new movement orders or changes to the existing ones be ordered for the men shelled. Conceptually, the men are un-pinning, the dust is clearing, their ears are recovering, confusion is subsiding.

9. Who is affected by these movement restrictions? If an HQ is within 50 yards of shell impact by the LOS tool, all units under command of that HQ (red lines, not black) fall under the restriction - whether the individual units is that close or not. Use a "group halt" order if you choose the halt option, surrounding the whole platoon etc with a group select. (Conceptually, the guy who would give new orders is physically unable to do so - nobody can hear him). One response, continue or halt, for the whole group under the same HQ (the men do what they *see* the Sgts do - and they either hit the deck or don't flinch). A unit not in command (black line) is affected if it is within 50 yards of an impact point.

10. Affected units may get new fire orders, hide or unhide normally, set fire arcs normally. It is only movement and movement plans that are restricted. Whether they are suppressed or pinned in other respects is up to the game engine and their morale.

After a minute in which no indirect shells land so close, the unit may act normally in all respects, morale state of course permitting.

These optional rules are entirely seperable from my "battalion fires" idea. I think they would compliment one another. But even used alone, the above changes will bring arty usage closer to historical realities, with less flexibilty for the men under arty fire, and fire mission sizes more like the real thing.

[ January 26, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

4. The maximum number of TRPs you may buy as a defender in a QB is artillery points spent divided by 100. You may always take 1 TRP, even if you buy no arty (e.g. to use as a "boresighted" ambush point). In assaults, add 1 TRP to the allowance. In probes, round any fractions down.

Based on what real life practice? I should think number of TRPs would be dependent on the amount of time a unit was in position (ie how much time it had to boresight and preregister targets). It would also be dependent on what level of support was assigned to it (ie battalion, regimental, divisional, etc._which is reflected in the price of the arty and hence in your rule rather nicely.

But why would this be based on the "attack stance" of the enemy?

Wouldn't all MGs and AT guns in a company defensive position be boresighted, given time?

Perhaps the problem is in having dual purpose TRPs - maybe the gentleman's rule should prohibit direct fire weapons from firing on FO TRPs and vice versa?

[JasonC]

Based on the actual effect of TRPs in CM QBs, with perfect borg information processed at half minute time scales, etc. The intention is to remove "scalpel" sniping at individual bushes with small amounts of artillery fire, instead of realistically large concentrations. Pick your artillery kill zones - not "anywhere".

The effect of too many cheap TRPs at present is simply to make artillery response time and accuracy godlike for defenders, setting an impossibly unrealistic benchmark in fire effect per shell that all other uses of arty (and with them, prices) then compete with. Unsuccessfully. It encourages a gamey use and effectively penalizes (via pricing) all other realistic uses.

Yes, a battery could register on every bush, but in practice they didn't. Because they did not plan on firing tiny missions at each. And they did not have split second timing based on instant intel reports from LPs without radios half a kilometer across a loud battlefield, so that every bush was hit with 12 shells 45 seconds after anybody saw anything. If you like, it is the number of places the actual guy with the radio or phone is actually looking at.

As for boresights, a few should be sufficient. Painting bullseyes on everything is just as unrealistic for direct fire use, because in reality each gun would be sighted at one location that way, not at any of 12 that where anything might appear. Right now the same PAK can be boresighted at half a dozen locations - as long as it hasn't moved, it gets the bonus at all of them.

Mass TRP use is simply gamey, and people should get out of the habit. Just set a fire arc, except for a key ambush point or two. It is not like there isn't enough defense dominance in CMBB already...

[ January 26, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Apache]

I like the sound of them and will give them a try. If they work out OK I'll include them in my version of the BCR ruleset (giving you credit of course) if you don't mind. I'll perhaps post some feedback afet 15-20 battles or so.

Would there be any value in adding any further 'considerations' to emulate bn level support and/or limit the numbers/ratio of arty (e.g. perhaps not entirely realistic to buy 2 x 150, 3 x 105 2 x 81 and 1 120mm - not sure if anyone could ever afford this mind or whether the pre-determined artillery 'bias' in a QB will let you)?