Top Ten Reasons Artillery is Poorly Modelled

[X-00]

I’ve hesitated to enter the debate concerning Combat Mission Artillery. Many threads have emerged over the last couple months, which are “nibbling” around the fundamental fact that the Artillery is poorly modeled. Sadly, while the armor and infantry models are much improved, the artillery model is not. I wrote the below 10 points over two months ago and it has been on display at Band of Brothers since. Three things to bear in mind before you read the my top 10.

A. Many will ferociously argue, “Allied Artillery was an operational tool beyond the scope of the game”. Hogwash. Operational artillery decisions center around the allocation of assets and ammo. Once the allocation decisions are made, the hard work is integrating the assets to support the tactical scheme of maneuver. Artillery was the tactical tool used by the allies to secure tactical success, and hence operational and hence strategic success. General Depuy’s, one of the U.S. Army’s greatest analytical minds, words sum this up well;

“I honestly concluded at the end of World War II, when I soberly considered what I had accomplished, that I had moved the forward observers of the artillery across France and Germany. In other words, my battalion was the means by which field artillery observers were moved to the next piece of high ground. Once you had a forward observer on a piece of ground, he could call up ten battalions of artillery and that meant that you had won the battle. (DePuy as quoted on page 88 of Parker’s Battle of the Bulge)

While these comments reflect his view of American artillery, they surely reflect the opinion of many Soviet infantry regiment and battalion commanders who closely hugged barrages that suppressed the MG42, enemy ATGs and artillery thus keeping them and their soldiers alive.

B. The size and reliance of the Red Army on artillery was much higher than any other power during the war. Over 1 million men were serving in artillery units by 1944. That is one sixth of the entire army, air force and navy combined. By March 1944 there wee 10,261 howitzers in the 122, 152, and 203 range, 2100 additional guns in the 122 to 152 range, 18000 120mm mortars and 3500 M13 rocket launchers. These were organized into 29 Artillery divisions (Mar 44) later expanded to 39 Artillery divisions (Mar 45). They were centralized IOT to maximize the technical skills necessary for accurate concentrated fire in support of tactical schemes of maneuver. During the attack the Soviet maneuver elements were supported by a steady drumbeat of fire, which frankly is not modeled in the game. I’m not arguing for an uber Soviet Artillery capable of rapid shifting of fire, but in the Attack or Assaults there should be a constant rain of shells.

C. Finally, in the points below, I’m not saying CMBB is a bad game. It is a good game.

So without further ado, the top ten reasons CM artillery is poorly modeled:

1. Sheaf:

a. Orientation: Is invariably converged parallel to line of advance (this can be compensated for by playing N-S maps i.e. rotating the sheaf 90 degrees)

b. Size: Too, small. Should range from 200 (Width) x 200 (Depth) for a 105 battalion to 400 x 200 8 inch. Artillery sheafs are explained well here:

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/sheafs.html

c. Rate of Fire/Density: A 105mm howitzer has a max effective rate of fire of 10 rounds a minute (for 3-4 minutes), 4 rounds a minute sustained. A 155mm howitzer max ROF 8-6, sustained 4-3. Mortars have much higher rates of fire. Additionally, artillery was programmed to fire at intervals to length the time of suppression (1 round a minute, or two rounds a minute).

2. Unit of Purchase/Fire: The standard firing unit during WWII was the battalion (12-18 tubes allies, 12-9 Germans). Batteries fired independently rarely. It they fired as batteries it was usually an act of desperation or poor planning. Firing as batteries is very inefficient. A battalion firing 1 round per tube (12 rounds) is much more effective than a battery firing 6 rounds per tube (24 rounds). Every artillery officer, regardless of nationality has this hammered into him as a subaltern!

3. Purchase Cost/Rarity/Ammunition Loads: Lacks a reasonable rationale. In both BO and BB German artillery get all the price breaks. In BO the Germans got the cost break because Allies had to pay a responsiveness tax. In BB there is no responsiveness tax. Rarity doesn’t give the Russki a break despite the fact that the outnumbered the Germans by an order of magnitude at the points of attack, and didn’t have strategic and interdiction bombing, nor partisans disrupting Soviet ammunition production or delivery.

4. Inability to Shift From Known Point. In CM delay in fire is tied the size of the correction, i.e. any correction bigger than 100m results in a completely new fire mission. This is completely wrong headed and doesn’t reflect reality in anyway shape or form.

5. TRPs/Targets. Not available to either side in a ME, or the attacker in attacks or assaults. Again this doesn’t reflect reality in anyway shape or form.

6. For allies, no intelligence on enemy dispositions prior to fire planning. The Amis, Brits, Russians didn’t attack blind per CM SOP. On the west front the allies had complete air supremacy and the piper cub was ubiquitous. On the east front the Russians were superb tactical patrollers/infiltrators and had partisans to help out. Should a complete picture be available? No. But some semblance of a picture is required for realistic fire planning. This is a QB complaint, and may be difficult to code.

7. One target per unit for pre-planned bombardments. This tied with point number three above is completely ahistorical and really hurts the Russian player.

8. Onboard Infantry (Howitzer) Guns, mountain guns and other low velocity guns no able to fire indirectly on the map. The infantry guns were extremely low caliber (short barreled) and the crews were trained at hitting dead space.

9. U.S. officers and to a lesser extent British officers, particularly Company Commanders unable to call in fire. A CMBO complaint

10. The nonsensical target drift, and sheaf spread when artillery falls out of LOS. Believe the FO spotting correcting routine may be a bug.

To reiterate, CMBB nor CMBO before it are bad games. But, Artillery is and was poorly modeled.

In closing, the Red Army’s superiority Artillery grew throughout the war. The 99th Guard Rifle Regiment is illustrative in this superiority growth.

In 1944 at the beginning of Bagration the 99th attack with 5 battalions (15 batteries in support) not including mortars. The scheme of maneuver had two battalions upfront one in reserve.

In 1945, the same regiment attacked into Berlin with one battalion up front supported by: 92 76mm guns (23 batteries), 40 122mm howitzers (4 batteries), 36 120mm mortars, 28 122mm guns (7 batteries), 50 203mm howitzers (12 batteries) and 12 280mm mortars (3 batteries).

The game does not reflect this tactical reality.

[ February 07, 2003, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: X-00 ]

[Edward Windsor]

Very interesting post, X.

Cheers,

Teddy

[ February 07, 2003, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Edward Windsor ]

[Lindan]

CMBB is using a tweaked CMBO engine. Many thinks are simply not possible with the current engine.

There is a reason there will be a CM2 you know...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Edward Windsor:

Very interesting post, X. I'd nip back and give it a quick edit, though ... I was very confused for a minute there.

Oh, hush and fourpence, your Royal Highness. I'm sure he was just being efficient by fitting a double post into a single posting.

I don't see why the reasons given are the "top ten". No mention of

11. Crest restrictions

12. Fuzing (time fire, ricochet fire, mine effect)

13. Barrages in addition to simple concentrations

14. Different national arty command doctrines

15. Difference between direct support, general support and reinforcing roles

16. DF(SOS) (later called FDF) tasks

17. TOT concentrations

18. Lack of elevated OPs e.g. in churches

19. Lack of distinction between WP, BES and bursting smoke shell

20. Lack of trenches with overhead cover and excessive effectiveness of VT

The main change that needs to be made to improve the arty model is to treat the observer, the firing battery and the ammo supply as separate entities, instead of lumping the whole lot together as a "module".

To do proper fire planning, more control measures than just TRPs will need to be added (barrage lines, DF(SOS) tasks and the like) and the appropriate actions for them modelled. This would go some way towards making CM a "command game"; it would thereafter I think be harder to resist the inclusion of control measures such as start lines (lines of departure), phase lines, objectives and boundaries for the maneouvre elements.

All the best,

John.

[Lumbergh]

Well, although I would welcome more realism in any aspect of the game, I have to say that perhaps there could be such a thing as "too much" detail in the artillery model.

If it got to the point of everyone needing a slide rule to play a QB we might as well throw our copies of CM in the trash and go join the Army. I jest, but you get my point.

[Tarquelne]

If it got to the point of everyone needing a slide rule to play a QB we might as well throw our copies of CM in the trash and go join the Army. I jest, but you get my point. [/QB]

Yes. You have an irrational hatred of slide rules.

Frankly, your kind isn't wanted here.

[Mr Byte]

Ok this is my 2ps worth, but first I am not a grog i know little about artillery and I'm quite new to this period.

That said.

dosn't the artillery work well in the frame work of this game? I see quotes on the amount of artillery available to a 2 up 1 back Division attack and i think yeah but most CMBB battles are 1000 pt? thats at best a battalion. with anything like that amount of artillery the game would be over in a hurry !!

even with the current model a well placed artillery strike can and will ruin your day. anything more and there would be posts of " artillery is just too strong"

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement I'm just saying it aint that bad it works well to give us a balanced game.

I don't think mass artillery pulverising the German defenses in 1945 would be much fun to play. (I know thats what happened, but how much fun would that be?)

2p deposited

[MikeyD]

Lumbergh mentions 'too much of a good thing'. I can imgaine a properly modeled 'full-up' Corps artillery barrage on a small-medium CMBB (and especially CMBO) map, the game immediately ending after turn 1 because all the combatants are dead or wounded.

Reminds me of CMBO's neglect of strategic bombing. The reason was a squadron of B24s dropping their entire load on a CMBO village would cause it to disappear! The scale of the carnage would be entirely outside the scope of the game.

[ February 06, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Hans]

Since we're on artillery.

A need to model counter-fire is necessary - and fire priority and FPF type missions. Sometimes the fire didn't come and sometimes you don't get as much as you want.

All sides had target acquistion units using various methods to find and silence enemy mortars and arty.

Use of your indirect against the enemy was one of the key decisions made by the commanders at all levels.

[Hans]

Since we're on artillery.

A need to model counter-fire is necessary - and fire priority and FPF type missions. Sometimes the fire didn't come and sometimes you don't get as much as you want.

All sides had target acquistion units using various methods to find and silence enemy mortars and arty.

Use of your indirect against the enemy was one of the key decisions made by the commanders at all levels.

[Ryan Crierie]

Mortars are WORTHLESS in CMBO and CMBB, especially

mortar HTs, since you have to have them next to

a command unit that has LOS to the target....

[MikeyD]

I nearly coughed up my lunch to read the mortars are 'worthless'! They aren't if you know how to use 'em!

Artillery modeling for the Eastern Front is a very tricky problem. I understand lower Soviet units didn't have the ability to call in on-demand artillery support. Only officers of a certain rank got map training, at least that's how it was post-war.

On the German side, they were constantly short on ammo. Tanks were discouraged from long range supressive fire, and forward infantry units didn't know if the artillery backing them up had sufficient shells handy.

I suspect truely accurate 'properly modeled artillery' for the Eastern Front would cause howls of protest.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Hans:

Since we're on artillery.

A need to model counter-fire is necessary - and fire priority and FPF type missions. Sometimes the fire didn't come and sometimes you don't get as much as you want.

All sides had target acquistion units using various methods to find and silence enemy mortars and arty.

Use of your indirect against the enemy was one of the key decisions made by the commanders at all levels.

Well since you won't see this in CMBB (probably nothing until the re-write a few yrs down the road), maybe set your casualty level to a non-zero%, buy a few spotters, and smile when one or more don't show up b/c they are "casualties of counter-battery fire."

[Becket]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Mortars are WORTHLESS in CMBO and CMBB

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Cpt. Cook]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If it got to the point of everyone needing a slide rule to play a QB we might as well throw our copies of CM in the trash and go join the Army. I jest, but you get my point.

Yes. You have an irrational hatred of slide rules.

Frankly, your kind isn't wanted here. [/QB]</font>

[Olle Petersson]

2. Unit of Purchase/Fire: The standard firing unit during WWII was the battalion ...

Batteries fired independently rarely.

Ideally, yes, and only for divisional and higher artillery.

- Battalion and regimental artillery was no more than single batteries.

- When artillery within range wasn't abundant, like for defenders in "calm" sectors, it was common to distribute resources in battery strength.

Cheers

Olle

[White Phosphorus]

The best way to model operational artillery is to simply set damage to a certain level (medium), and set enemy casualties to something plausible.

If you are assaulting a 100% fresh defender, then combined arms have already failed at a higher level, and you will be in trouble.

[S.Sgt. Havilandt]

A rather interesting read. Some thought was definately put into that list.

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

- Battalion and regimental artillery was no more than single batteries.

I do know Soviet artillery regiments had more than a single battery per battalion as follows:

</font>

• light artillery battalion - five 4-tube batteries.</font>
• cannon battalion - three 2-tube batteries. Army artillery, heavy, and super heavy artillery battalions were all similarly arranged.</font>

Soviet mortar regiments had battalions with three 6-tube batteries.

[MikeyD]

White Phospherous brought up something I had completely forgot. Way back during the Beta, the casualty and health settings (shaken, cautious, etc.) were said to be put in specifically to replicate a unit that had undergone a corps artillery bombardment shortly before the scenario started. So a 1945 Russian assault would be against a weakened/wounded opponent.

But it doesn't seem to be used much for that. Scenario design seems to lean more towards play balance than historical role-playing. Seems nobody wants to play decimated German infantry facing a soviet armored assault!

[Stalin's Organ]

A very interesting read indeed.

Grisha - I think he's talking about infantry regiment artillery, not artillery regiments.

And to the ...um..person who thinks mortars are useless because they need a coomand element for firing blind..........er.....what planet are you on??

That's a GOOD feature!!

[Grisha]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

The best way to model operational artillery is to simply set damage to a certain level (medium), and set enemy casualties to something plausible.

If you are assaulting a 100% fresh defender, then combined arms have already failed at a higher level, and you will be in trouble.

Good point. Given that a Soviet barrage could be a minimum of 45 turns and as long as 120 turns, setting it up at post barrage makes the most sense. A good way to do that is just design a scenario with total defensive positions and troops in place, then allocate however many batteries you want to the barrage, assign maximum ammo, then fly away. Towards the end of the scenario, save it, then use it as the template for an assault scenario. If there wasn't enough ammo in the game, then make the next design another barrage. Once you have the barrage down for the assigned time, save, then use as the assault scenario.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Grisha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

- Battalion and regimental artillery was no more than single batteries.

I do know Soviet artillery regiments had more than a single battery per battalion as follows:

</font>

[Tarquelne]

Yes. You have an irrational hatred of slide rules.

Frankly, your kind isn't wanted here.

Whose "kind", I wonder? New CM customers to spread the word on a great game? Enthusiastic new players with common sense?

Slide rule haters, of course. Every few months another one appears, talking about the wonders of the latest IBM hole-punch machine, a smaller Babbage-engine, or whatever.

[ February 06, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Andreas]

Well, I think to throw about the mind-boggling numbers of support guns and batteries that a single RR had in the Berlin operation is really not particularly relevant on the CM level.

In the assault stage of Bagration, the average density was 750 soviet riflemen in first echelon against 80 German riflemen defending in the assault sectors per km of frontage. That was before the barrage. The Soviets would bring tanks and SPGs to the party, on avg. 36 per km of frontage. The Germans can have a 1-2 Stugs or Panzers, and 2-3 artillery guns and another 3-2 mortars with little ammo. So that there are 178 Soviet against 5 German guns per km.

Somehow I can not see many takers for that sort of game on the German side.

More importantly, I think it would be about as exciting as playing a game where you attack a company of T26 with a company of Sturmtigers.