Jump to content

Top Ten Reasons Artillery is Poorly Modelled


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah, got it. What I meant by "automatic" is the adjustment phase. Player's won't have to issue seperate commands to judge range, correct for error, etc. Just tell the FO what you want to hit and how you want to hit it, and the code will do the rest. That part is REALLY simple to program from a conceptual standpoint. If there is one thing programmers love it is real world If/Then proceedures.

Will there be an option to have FFE without ranging shots and/or corrections ?

Also, will there be a possibility to choose from TOT and "regular" firemission. It would be nice to have multiple FO's target the same area and have a coordinated, massed TOT fire mission.

We probably will, however, give FOs some sort of Cover Arc type thing so they can be set to trigger based on limited parameters (SOPs).

Will this incorporate TRP's in LOS to FO's or HQ units capable of calling in artillery ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I thought to toss my oar into this a bit.

As an ex-regular officer in Finnish Defence Forces (albeit not artillery) I can say that what Tero is saying in his posts is indeed quite correct. Finnish artillery system and doctrine is very poorly known in both West and East. Not many know about it's inventions and doctrine. Not many even know the name of Gen V.P. Nenonen. Even fewer know the name of Maj. Veikko Koppinen (11.D staff member), who created the system of getting the all available arty and mortars inside range to have their fire arrive simultaneously. In addition to capability to fire with all available units, now the initial shock and destruction effect was multiplied (since most casualties happen when targets are not yet taken cover).

This advancement was tried first in battle of Lake Kuzra 20.3.1942 with 6 battaillons of artillery and 10 mortars. Effect was devastating.

As it's said in Finnish documents, during summer 1944 battles, at start, fire support was not as effective as infantry in front line would have wanted it to be. In main battle area (I think german word "schwerpunkt" describes it better), support was approx. 10 artillery battaillons under single fire orders, becoming 18-20 battaillons in start of July. Finnish artillery shot during 22.-30.6.1944 in Tali-Ihantala battle 48 400 rounds. In comparison Soviets did shoot 129 000 rounds. 1.-7.7.1944 43 800 compared to 86 350 Soviet rounds.

When Soviet barrage could last 1-2 hours, Finnish were 1-2 minutes.

Finnish translations of official war diaries of Soviet 21.Army HQ, XXX Guards Corps, 79.D and 109.D. (available in Finnish War Archive, obtained after war) show from late June to start of July how the artillery superiority shifted from Soviets to Finns, even though Soviets had multitude of tubes more. One (cannot remeber right now which, might have been XXX G.Corps diary) says clearly "despite our efforts, enemy has obtained clear artillery superiority on this sector".

That was quite an impressive statement on effect of Finnish artillery in that crucial but less known battle (after all it was the size of El Alamein which everyone knows). And it was achieved by good tactics, training and doctrine that is still in use.

Does that have anything to do with CMBB ? Some but not really significantly. Most if not all aspects of Finnish artillery can be modelled in CMBB already. Would it be fun for gameplay perspective. IMHO no. Create a scenario with lots of massed Soviets advancing, give them pre-planned bombardment (but not as much as to Finns, since we are speaking about effectiveness now, not numbers). Then give defending Finns for example 18 battaillons of artillery with lots of TRPs around for battaillon size force. Then play that...it's not fun, or fair, it's educating and historical though. That's how Soviet advance was stopped. But would anyone want to play as unbalanced game ? I myself wouldn't want, since I want enjoy CMBB as a very good wargame and not historical simulation.

Just my few cents,

Cheers,

M.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

Most if not all aspects of Finnish artillery can be modelled in CMBB already.

Indeed. I'm not tying my panties in a knot because of what is missing as such. It is the implementation of what is present in the current model that gives me heartburn.

Would it be fun for gameplay perspective. IMHO no.

The scale of the battle is all important. Steve said in a low LOS (small/medium ? sized) battle the role of the artillery is insignificant. I wonder how that would have played out IRL in the hilly forest wilderness of the Eastern Karelia for example. Or the Hürtgen forest for that matter.

(but not as much as to Finns, since we are speaking about effectiveness now, not numbers).

I wonder how that would fit into the design philosophy of the model. I believe the artillery was toned down because of the weight of fire issues vs effectivness, not because of the accuracy of fire vs effectivness issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

I wonder how that would fit into the design philosophy of the model. I believe the artillery was toned down because of the weight of fire issues vs effectivness, not because of the accuracy of fire vs effectivness issues.

I think they had to make some sacrifices for the gameplay aspect. And also figuring different artillery models must be a pain in butt to program. Maybe in engine rewrite. I think that Finnish artillery in game would have become unbalancedly powerful (since I think like you that game models more weight of fire as compared of accuracy of it) if given all advantages it had vs. for example Soviet artillery. Because of that, Finns suffer a bit compared to others in QBs, but I can live with that. Games would have become either artillery duels or more likely in Sov. vs. Finns game Soviet player raining everything he got as pre-planned bombardment...and then Finns hammering the hapless Soviets when they advance. It's historical, technically accurate but it's not fun (just my opinion). And it couldn't be toned by points cost or rarity because that'd open another as unsolvable can of worms of fairness.

So, we are stuck with Anglo/American-German-Soviet artillery game model, which cannot grasp all Finnish nuances...since it cannot grasp all American or British artillery nuances truly accurately either (in that I have to trust the word of USMC artillery expert who should know). I think game models Soviet artillery quite well, and up to point German too. But when it comes to finer points of artillery fire, same model cannot fulfill all it's asked to do.

Discussions like this should be discussed, for sake of possible improvements in future engine.

But I'd rather seen sissi-squads after 1943 and T-28/T-28E in game (I know the multi-turret problem, but smile.gif ) than possible Finnish artillery tweak. Sissi-squads because they were similar to squads in divisional jaeger company (that were not present in every division). And campaign mode (that's what I miss..and ahistorical it might be, capability to track one's units through war is entertaining...yea..I know operations ;) )

Anyway...maybe in engine rewrite we can see more variation...in way of CM 1939-45 maybe ?

Cheers,

M.S.

[ February 12, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

... the name of Maj. Veikko Koppinen (11.D staff member), who created the system of getting the all available arty and mortars inside range to have their fire arrive simultaneously. In addition to capability to fire with all available units, now the initial shock and destruction effect was multiplied (since most casualties happen when targets are not yet taken cover).

This advancement was tried first in battle of Lake Kuzra 20.3.1942 with 6 battaillons of artillery and 10 mortars. Effect was devastating...

Not to be picky, but the RA first did that in action in France in May 1940 on a refuelling panzer bn. The effect was devastating.

Regards

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some random thoughts about this artillery issue:

- Tero, dont you know that only American pov and nationalism are good, other povs and nationalism of other countries are bad, and can be described as terrorism if necessary... smile.gif

- When German 144th ID came to Viipurinlahti early July 1944 to help Finns, its artillery was given only preplanned targets, as its lesser flexibility compared to Finnish artillery was known to all.

- In all fairness it has to be pointed out that Finnish artillery got its act together not until early July 1944, when there was sufficient amount of guns, ammunition and efficiently trained personnel to carry out the doctrines drafted by Artillery General Nenonen. At Karelian Isthmus the arrival of 6th ID from Eastern Karelia with its excellent arty staff was the turning point.

[ February 13, 2003, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Keke ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JonS:

Not to be picky, but the RA first did that in action in France in May 1940 on a refuelling panzer bn. The effect was devastating.

Regards

Jon [/QB]

Interesting, one learns something new every day. Besides, RA had always been damn good artillery force.

Well, as it was said in previous posts, Finnish artillery really got it's act together in those decisive battles of summer 1944. The combination of getting fire from all tubes available and simultaneous arriving of fire was indeed devastating. Also the availability to switch the fire group's targets quickly (and I'm not saying we did best in that). It was the only way that army with relatively limited resources could manage to compete with enemy with huge resources. In Winter War, first method was in use, but there were not enough tubes and pitifyl amount of ammo. In summer 1944 that was remedied.

Cheers,

M.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been around to put my oar in on this thread, but have read through it now. I am encouraged by the comments about refinements of arty moduling in the works for the next CM.

I'd add one item to the original list of things to think about changing - a lot more arty created dust. Players shoot smoke missions all over when the real guys would use HE, because a big enough HE barrage had smoke like effects. Not perhaps as long or covering the same area as thoroughly, but when combined with suppression at least as likely to temporarily blind a target unit.

This also effects corrections and the tendency to "micro manage" the fall of shells, adjusting the aim point constantly in response to small enemy shifts. Part of the reason that wasn't done as much in reality as in CM is that the earlier shells made it hard to see the later ones, let alone the enemy under the barrage.

I also have a suggestion for the issue of placing fire missions in dead ground. Make it part of a finer set of gradations to "adjustments". Right now, you see the target or you don't, within 100m or more than 100m, with a large change in arty accuracy riding on which. Make some middling categories and a lot of things should improve.

In terms of game mechanics, have the player select an "aim point" just like now, but they if he likes he can also "adjust fire" the same time he orders it. The adjustment can be 100m or less (green line), or 100-200m (yellow line or whatever, signifying "caution but possible").

Then let there be some small "standard error" for all non-TRP barrages, like the center-point is off by a median error of 20m, randomly. Double the standard error for "long adjusts" of 100-200m. Also double the standard error for adjusts out of LOS (cumulative with the previous, if applicable) - instead of treating them as completely unobserved missions.

So, if you see a woodline you put your aim point where you can see into the trees. Then adjust 80m back into the woods, even without LOS. That makes the accuracy go down only slightly (40m median error instead of 20m, for out of LOS). A longer adjustment to 200m beyond the crest of a hill would have 80m median error, and you are getting up near the current behavior of unobserved barrages.

It'd be great if TRPs could be used for adjustments in the same manner. Just treat the aim point as the TRP, and then the adjustment as to a normal accuracy barrage aimed at that location.

This slight "seperation" in the concept of "aim point" and "barrage location" is already present in player's minds, because they already think in terms of how far they can "walk" the shells (green adjustment lines). And it is realistic - FOs use prominent terrain as aim points and then use offsets from that terrain - "150m south of the church" or whatever.

I'd also like to see some arty moduled as limited in responsiveness or firing flexibility, by a mechanism other than fire mission delay. I think this may become more important as the potential refinement of "shoots" increases ("4 rounds per gun from 3 batteries").

See, that can potentially create a "micro management race", trying to put down each shell just so, when most arty support was "blunter" than that. The ability to do that sometimes is one thing. A competitive requirement to do it every time is something else, and not realistic.

A way around that is to set up trade offs of large shooting formations, "discounts" for "bluntness" if you like. This battalion must shoot all together, with a wide sheaf; or these rockets must be used prep or planned fire; that battery can do anything the artillery mechanics allow. Treated just as different "unit types" in a scenario.

I second the comment to scenario designers to "knock themselves out" with roles for artillery that you would not see in QBs. Don't get hung up on supposed balance effects of the point totals, and feel free to instruct players that certain uses of their artillery are requirements of having it.

"The rockets must be fired prepped or planned fire, ordered on turn 1" e.g. - then in your balance considerations, treat them as much less than their "point value". Or give special names to 3 FOs of the same type, with a tweaked ammo amount each, and instruct the player "these FOs must fire at the same target - they represent a battalion shoot". You could add a wide sheaf requirement or not.

An attack that has several battalions of such "restricted" arty support need not be lopsided at all. The value of a restricted use "unit of fire" is vastly lower than that of a micro-managed one with the same number of shells.

These are the kinds of things we should not expect the programmers to do for us, and instead should take on as a scenario designer's task.

On the role of artillery tactically and operationally, I think some distinctions are being missed. It is not that operational use of artillery was just so massive that it is beyond the scope of CM or would make lopsided fights. That is true only of a few outlier cases, and is not the main issue. The main issue is that the operational power of artillery was something felt gradually over longer time scales than single CM fights.

On the common 75% of casualties fact, you have to start by realizing that "shell splinters" does not equal "artillery fire". Tank rounds create shell splinters, as do hand grenades. Bullet wounds don't mean infantry, similarly - they include vehicle MGs. Probably 50% of losses were inflicted by artillery in the sense of indirect fire, 50% by direct fire, roughly split between vehicles and guns on the one hand, and infantry on the other.

Why did indirect fire inflict such a high portion of the losses? Because the opportunities to fire are much easier to come by, and the ammo was made available to make use of that fact. Men can try to stay out of sight of direct fire weapons, but an entire army cannot avoid being within 10 miles of enemy artillery. And the rate of ammo expenditure for the tube arty was millions of rounds per month.

Operationally, what attackers did was focus that expenditure, in time and in space. It is a logistics-driven, attrition thing. You rail or truck such and such a portion of your shells to this portion of the front - a portion measured on a scale of 5-50 divisions, over 5-50 days.

It is not hard to have the tubes available opposite the enemy to chuck the stuff. It does help if you have better shooting opportunities - good observation, fire planning, an attack to make him man his defenses and locate units, etc. But the basic logic is pretty simply - you fire more shells at him than he has men in that area. As a result you hit a significant portion of his men in that area. That drives the local odds upward for the maneuver arms.

You don't need "annihilating fires", in the sense of so much arty fired that everyone under it is toast, to get this operational effect. Trying for that is actually quite wasteful, because it involves tons of wasted firepower, in the form of overkill and empty locations hit with tons of HE. You don't need to wipe out a company to the last man. You just bleed it 25 men at a time, and by the end of a week of fighting it is gone.

Understand the scale of the losses units could withstand and actually took. A division in action could lose 250 to 500 men per day, from 7-10 infantry type battalions. Nobody can stand that for a month. Divisions wear out completely in a time scale of weeks under those kind of losses. So arty could be achieving its -operational- objective, even if the casualties inflicted by entire battalions of guns in one CM battle were only 20-40 men.

The way to simulate that -operational- impact of artillery superiority is to use the "losses" feature, reduce units to 2/3rds size, or drop an echelon - depending on the amount of it that has gone on to date. A battalion goes from TOE, to TOE but 20-30% losses, to 2/3rds TOE and 20-30% losses, to a company, to a company with 20-30% losses.

Throw in "damage" to the battlefield area for realism's sake, and consider lowering the "fitness" rating of the defenders, and by the time they are reduced to a lower echelon size, their morale-quality rating too. A weakened green company with 20% losses is not a fit regular battalion at TOE. The former you'd see at the end of a month of an artillery-heavy offensive, the latter only at the very start of it. That is what decisive use of artillery at the operational scale looks like, not 40 firing batteries demolishing every tree in a square kilometer before the infantry advances.

Did they nevertheless follow barrages, tactically speaking? Yes, they did. They did not just "prep fire" for 30 minutes and then advance after all the guns stopped firing. They had guns firing at the men they advanced towards, 250-500 yards ahead of the infantry, "walking" over the defenders. The overall ammo expenditure involved was much higher than you see in CM QBs, without annihilating the defenders in a single fight.

If you want to see such a barrage with Russian attackers, try this. Give 3 FOs (76mm, or 122mm in a big late attack) turn 1 planned fire orders to shoot "wide" at the same location or close to it. 3 more at a location 200-400 yards further on and 5 minutes later. Same one more time 5 minutes later again.

Last, deep in the enemy position have 2-3 heavy FOs (122mm, or late and a large attack 152s) order "planned fire" at 5, 10, and 15 minutes, wide sheaf, as "harassment and interdiction" behind the area being attacked. Those will come down slowly, but the create a random chance of a big round nearby over a wide area for a -long- period of time.

Then the infantry tries to "follow the barrage", capturing the areas the forward, lighter guns just hit, as soon as that portion of the barrage ends. They plan to advance half a kilometer to a kilometer. They don't go into the deeper, heavy shell area - either at all, or until after the whole fight if the defense has collapsed.

You can do these things accurately in CM scenarios already. A little bit of work on turn 1, and you should just ignore the "cost" of it as irrelevant outside a QB. Scenario designers can instruct players about restrictions on uses of some or all of their artillery, without "choreographing" every aspect of it. Let mortars FOs fire "flexibly", require planned fire and wide sheafs from the rest, and there you are.

I hope this is helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Finnish artillery, I don't think distinctive practices or maps are the main thing. Yes TOTs are useful and TRPs likewise, but you can easily see the effect if you just get the terrain right and let the Finns defend. See Rune's scenario "Panzers in Finland" if you don't understand what that means.

When the terrain is true taiga, pine forest or open forest (in CMBB terms, wide blocks of scattered trees) everywhere, there aren't a whole lot of things that matter tactically. But the two that matter most are infantry quality and TRP directed defender artillery.

Tanks and direct fire heavy weapons don't have enough room or long enough LOS lines. Infantry engagements in woods are very bloody and very fast because the ranges start so close that firepower is enourmous. Whoever gets fire ascendency immediately gets off nearly unscathed, taking losses only in the first minute. The losers get slaughtered.

Tree burst arty makes one side the loser automatically, because they are defenseless when broken and easily approached. All routes are covered ones. Attackers don't get the treebursts because their guns aren't registered and they don't know where the defending positions are (there are no "phase lines" to speak of created by terrain - it is all very similar) until they walk onto them, while the defenders register the guns right in front of where they know they are.

Registered arty prevents massing of men from making up for lower unit quality. If you mass, the arty massacres you. If you don't, you have about as many men as the pointy end as the enemy does. He can be in better cover - the scattered trees are particularly nasty that way, because a trench in them is 2-3 times as safe as the ground outside. He is waiting rather than moving and is likely to get the first trigger pull because of it.

If he has quality as well, your men just pin on contact and never get up. Pushing more into the meatgrinder just repeats the debacle. The defenders run low on ammo and decamp. You wind up paying blood to their ammo, at point blank range firepower "rates", for tiny gains in terrain and without actually killing their guys.

If you can get around him and thus hit him from several directions at the same time, you can get local odds and cross fire pinning effects, and thus win. But that isn't easy against an unlocated defender, who moreover can shift about at will through fine cover and no overwatch, if not in immediate, point-blank contact.

Terrain, infantry quality, and the defender's edge with the guns - that explains it quite sufficiently. Most people don't see the full effect because they don't see the terrain realistically. They imagine it is more or less like QB maps, perhaps with "heavy" tree cover, which still gives scattered clumps of woods seperated by open ground patches, vehicle routes, and long lines of sight. No, real taiga, a blanket of trees everywhere, is tactically entirely different from such broken, open woods. That is pretty much all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a suggestion to flesh out my point about differentiating arty support types by "responsiveness". Why not make more use of the FO quality rating, to reflect such things? Then you have something to tie pricing to. Right now, FO quality has relatively minor effects. Instead, make it a major thing.

conscript FO - prep fire only (turn 1 start). Wide sheaf only. HE only. Whole module on one target.

green FO - prep fire or planned fire only (turn 1 orders). Wide sheaf only. HE only. Whole module on one target.

regular FO - prep, planned, or TRP fire allowed. Delayed fire at "called" targets allowed, with standard (relatively long) fire delays. Median barrage error 30m, maximum adjustment length 100m (green line only), out of LOS adjustment triples median error. Pure "map fire" (no aiming point or TRP) not allowed. HE or smoke. Minimum unit of fire 2 minutes worth from each gun. Wide or "standard" sheaf (circular rather than present oval, as though gun aim points are +50, +15, -15, -50 meters from battery aim point).

veteran FO - median barrage error 20m. 200m adjustments allowed. Errors double for out of LOS or over 100m adjusts. HE or smoke. Minimum unit of fire 1 minute worth from each gun. Wide, standard, or tight sheaf allowed (tight equals present default sheaf). Pure map fire allowed, but with 8x = 160m median error (wide sheaf thus recommended). Marginally faster response times (one minute faster typical).

crack FO - median error 10m, halving errors right down the line. Significantly faster response time, like half the present ones. Still 1 minute of fire minimum shells per gun.

elite FO - median error 5m, thus 40m accuracy (close to regular spotted barrages) even with unseen map fire. Response times much faster, approaching TRP ones for lower level types, a few minutes for heavy stuff. Any number of shells per gun fired. Faster reload times, giving 50% higher rate of fire.

Might also restrict the use of other HQs to spot, as follows. Regulars can spot from the dedicated FO only. Veterans and above can spot from a higher level HQ, company or battalion, in addition. They can use a platoon HQ to spot, but at one quality level lower than the FO.

Then people pay for the level of responsiveness they get, by paying for the quality level of the FO. Conscript FOs, instead of only marginally cheaper than regulars, would cost only 1/3-1/2 of the present prices. Greens 1/2-3/4. Higher qualities more expensive, naturally.

Then if you want to "snipe with 8 inch howitzers", you can. You have to pay for an elite heavy FO, thus a Cadillac price for the ammo. But you can order individual flights of big shells at carefully chosen points with relatively small delays.

If on the other hand you want a large scale prep fire, you can actually afford the shells to make it do something, by buying conscripts. Or gain the planning detail of a scheduled fire plan to walk you through the defense, by buying a battalion's worth of green medium guns.

Obviously the details can all be tweaked. The point is to tie the sorts of flexible responses a battery can make to the quality level of the FO. Instead of all issues of responsiveness being packed off into a delay factor, with planned fire as a work around for unwieldy delays, make restrictions on "scalpel" vs. bludgeon use part of artillery unit quality.

This is akin to certain infantry orders being unavailable for conscripts or greens, today.

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

On Finnish artillery, I don't think distinctive practices or maps are the main thing. Yes TOTs are useful and TRPs likewise, but you can easily see the effect if you just get the terrain right and let the Finns defend. See Rune's scenario "Panzers in Finland" if you don't understand what that means.

JasonC, Rune´s scenario presents the extra rough northern terrain at Lappland, not the terrain where decisive battles were fought.

You also forgot (like the game smile.gif ) what artillery can do to any woods. To illustrate my point I attach a couple of pictures of the Ihantala area.

After the truce was signed:

4409IhantalaSotavankienVaihtoa.jpg

More of those impenetrable forests ;) :

4408KannasIhantalanTienMets%E4%E4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a bit of a side note, but I don't quite understand the comments about some unit of the game (in this case "accurately" modelled Finnish artillery) being "unbalanced". It seems to me that especially effective units -- whether VT artillery, Finnish artillery, uber tanks, whatever -- can never lead to "unbalanced" quick battles, so long as they are priced right. A unit or feature should not be modelled incorrectly (ahistorically) for balance purposes, is should just have its price raised to put a quick battle game in balance.

As for scenarios, the designer of the scenario should ensure balance, not the programmer by deliberately making the units ahistoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JasonC:

Excellent points. I hope that things like that would be implemented to next game engine. I think TRPs should be used better for fire adjustment. They represent pre-plotted targets anyway and shifting fire from one to another should be very fast. But TRPs have one additional feature that I'm not sure I like, they also represent "boresighted" target area for AFVs and infantry. I fail to see how pre-plotted artillery target helps with tanks firing at same area smile.gif . I think we need 2 types of TRPs, indirect artillery and direct fire ones.

Cheers,

M.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Keke - I've asked a friend to post a diagram of the Finnish defense system at Hammer Grove in the winter war, in the southern sector. Methinks the terrain, including the woods, had rather a lot to do with it. If he gets it posted I will comment on it in detail.

But as a first point, I will note that not a single Finnish trench-line or bunker position is placed in terrain that is open. Every one of them is in the woods, and the fortifications are thickest astride the limited roads through those woods. There are open areas created by frozen marshland, and there are lanes through the trees were anti-tank ditches and ablatus have been prepared. Those are used as fire lanes for the Finnish bunkers and trenches. Everything was also wired and the covered routes (and roads) mined.

So you can walk across an open field of deep snow to a wire and ditch obstacle, under distant MG and direct gun fire from bunkers set at multiple angles. No thanks. But hey, at least FOs can see across the marshes to call for fire, that is true. Which is why the defenders near the treelines of such places are in bunkers, not just trenches. Some of them able to withstand multiple direct hits by arty up to 203mm.

Or you can walk up to a manned trenchline through forest (without tanks to help) and have registered tree-burst arty land over you 100m from the Finnish position, while trying to get through the wire. The situation I mentioned and the situation up north, plus fortifications. In return, you do get some supporting arty - but arty trying to use map fire or fire plans, because there is no LOS.

Or you can try to get engineers up the only road in the area to help tanks move, removing all the AT mines, to reach the point where multiple concrete pillboxes are sighted to cross their fires onto the road, along ablatus fields, ditches, and firebreaks laying across said road.

I can explain more about how such systems worked if my friend posts the map - diagram.

Moreover, only half the initial Russian force was committed in the south. The other half were split between the flanking attempt just north of lake Lagoda, and spread out efforts farther up in Lapland areas. That flanking movement was the doctrinally correct way to deal with the Mannerheim fortifications. But it failed, and that failure had everything to do with the woods fighting issues I discussed. It was also the sector were the Finns cut off entire Russian divisions and destroyed them, despite negative odds.

Operationally the lake Lagoda turning movement was right, but the Russian army was not prepared to execute it. And the difficulty of the task was vastly underestimated. Instead of trying to correct the deficiencies involved, the Russians gave up on the northern turning movement because of the terrain, and brought in Timoshinko, their positional warfare expert, to attack in the south after changes in tactics. (He was a machinegun officer in WW I).

In the south, the force to space rapidly built to levels higher than in WW I. The Finns had extensive fortifications, including concrete blockhouses 50 meters on a side with a dozen firing ports apiece, housing artillery and machineguns - plus numerous wooden bunkers, mines, wire, AT ditches, and layered trench systems. All set astride forested roads and blocking the routes between water obstacles, using frozen marshland and ponds as open fields of fire between the fortified woods areas.

There was nothing particularly impressive, tactically or doctrinally, about Finnish defense efforts there. It was their performance in the northern operations that stands out. That is where lone battalions fought off whole corps, and single divisions counterattacked, surrounded, and destroyed intruders who outnumbered them.

And if you look at how it happened, it is quite clear. The Russians were mostly road bound, on a very limited road net - supplimented by new ones they made themselves, though not enough of them. The Finns blew ablatus down these roads and mined them, and constructed repeated ambush positions along them. The Russians painstakingly advanced for a while, but so slowly Finnish reserves could react.

Which they did by circling into the open Russian rear areas on skis, cutting the roads behind the Russian main bodies and raiding their camps. Russian tanks did not matter because narrow mined roads through ablatus strewn forest make tanks nearly useless. Logistical superiority could not be brought to bear because there was no road net, and the roads there were could not be kept open.

So it came down to infantry quality in tight terrain at the tip of the spearheads. And the Finns easily won in that "suit". Green Russian conscripts from cities or southern farms did not know how to ski even when skis were available, and floundered in the deep snow of the woods trying to deploy or cover flanks until exhausted.

Night raids in rear areas deprived them of sleep and wrecked morale. Control of movements in the woods were abysmal; men simply got lost. The Finns had defensive advantages along the roads, including registered mortars and minefields. When they counterattacked the Russians did not, because the attacks were not delivered frontally but well into the Russian operational rear.

The Russians could not maintain a continuous front through the woods, because men on foot (as opposed to skis) in winter could not even be kept alive far from roads or supplies. It would have been possible to overcome this with large scale engineering works to develop transport links to the area and large forces to man the long frontages. But the Russians gave up on the northern flanking attempts instead, thinking such improvements impractical.

In the south, such infrastructure already existed and the frontage was narrow enough the Finns could not simply loop behind the Russians. Russian logistics and thus artillery weight could be brought to bear. But at the cost that the attacks were delivered straight into the teeth of the Mannerheim line, thickly manned itself and well prepared.

So of course terrain had everything to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by 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....

Can I play him. Please. Pretty Pleeease. Pretty pretty pretty please with brass knobs on. ;)

I find that direct los from Mortar isn't that bad a way of operating, and arranging command and spotting for them is not hard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

To Keke - I've asked a friend to post a diagram of the Finnish defense system at Hammer Grove in the winter war, in the southern sector. Methinks the terrain, including the woods, had rather a lot to do with it. If he gets it posted I will comment on it in detail. ...

JasonC, not surprisingly, your description is about the Winter War, ignoring the Finnish defensive efforts of summer 1944. Also, you make Mannerheim-line sound like Maginot-line or Westwall, which is totally untrue, but a natural conclusion if reading old Soviet sources, which overstate quality of every Finnish defensive line.

What I´m basically trying to say is that Finnish terrain is not just impenetrable forests, like Russian terrain is not just plain steppes.

I wonder where all the farmlands of Karelian Isthmus went by the time of the wars. :rolleyes:

Then again, the terrain could offer this kind of defensive positions for individual fighters:

4407KannasKPmiesVuosalmella.jpg

Here´s the Finnish "Maginot-line" in the summer of 1944:

4406KannaksellaTaisteluasemissa.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have now read the whole of this thread (!), and observe several significant GAME issues that haven't been mentioned by anyone. Whilst the artillery model is relatively simple, we have to ask 'is it's effect on the other elements of the game correct?', rather than 'is it correct?'. I assume we all agree that CM is not an artillery simulator, any more than it is a tank simulator?

First, and by far the most significant issue is that if you wish to have the full capability of art, and FO explicitly modelled, you must also model anything that impinges on the art/FO. To take a simple example, Borg spotting and eye in the sky are significant influences on the use of art in the game. You cannot put a full (or fuller) art simulation in the game without making art MUCH too effective because of that alone. To give you an example, recently in a game, enemy gun opens up at one of my tanks. Tank doesn't fully id gun, and anyway is busy backing up. Suspecting the gun is bad news (and having 30 odd 120mm mtr rounds left AND ONLY 3-4 turns left in the scenario, AND NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH IT), I find my mtr FO. He cant see the gun, but can see a patch of open ground c 10m from it, No problem, one LOS area barrage on order.

Now, what has effectively happened here? The tank has caused nearly instant (c1 min response, I was GE!) suppressing fire, utilising eye in the sky, AND the artificial limits of a scenario end approaching. Now extrapolate that to some of the 'more realistic' art modelling suggested in this thread.

I have much sympathy with BTS on this. They CANNOT change much in the art model (apart from a lot of things that are really chrome anyway) without unbalancing the current game. Even 'firing into dead ground' that you all want to be more accurate (and logically so in the examples given) could result in eye in the sky accurate barrages all over the map! (If not done carefully - more coding!)

Do not misunderstand me, I am excited by some of the changes mentioned for the new engine, however some rather significant limitations will be needed to avoid artillery taking over. Whilst artillery was one of the most significant players in WWII, WE DO NOT PLAY THOSE SCENARIOS! We play the balanced (ish), interesting combats, allowing more than automatic die roll fests, along the line of 'bang, I win'

I liked playing War in Russia (an old Gary Grigsby game - still available in fact), and have used it as a random battle/campaign generator (it is a division/corp level strategic east front game). Pick a combat, and use the sides to indicate what is around at a global level, and the general strategic situation (types and numbers of tanks, air suppport yes/no, supply levels, strategic and operational atackers etc). This then helps fill in the background to a series of battles very quickly, and you can generate the actual scenarios for whatever game you are playing (SL, CMBB, SPWAW etc) However, for every potentially interesting combat (relatively balanced etc), there are lots you wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I mean the '2 understrength divisions, hit by full strength 1SS Panzer Korps, enemy shatters straight away' type. If you want to do a scenario based on those, you are carrying realism well beyond gaming, and you wont mind if I don't join you!

Having said all this, there is scope for improvement, especially for the new engine. Just do not expect a full art sim, unless BTS are also going to give a full C&C, spotting, and external commander limitation sim as well!

Just my 3.5p worth (inflation, and it seemed too long for 2p)

[typos corrected]

[ February 16, 2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Sailor Malan ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Keke:

- Tero, dont you know that only American pov and nationalism are good, other povs and nationalism of other countries are bad, and can be described as terrorism if necessary... smile.gif

Well...... ;)

- When German 144th ID came to Viipurinlahti early July 1944 to help Finns, its artillery was given only preplanned targets, as its lesser flexibility compared to Finnish artillery was known to all.

I hope Andreas would pick up on this and do some independent research from the German POV.

- In all fairness it has to be pointed out that Finnish artillery got its act together not until early July 1944, when there was sufficient amount of guns, ammunition and efficiently trained personnel to carry out the doctrines drafted by Artillery General Nenonen. At Karelian Isthmus the arrival of 6th ID from Eastern Karelia with its excellent arty staff was the turning point.

Well, the act was together far earlier than 1944 when talking about the battery/battalion level implementation. It was together in 1939, in theory since there were precious little to throw at the enemy. It was together in 1941, this time with sufficient assets. The only thing that was "new" in 1944 was the massing of multiple battalions on a single target under a single FO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeyD:

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!

I think this is the main reason why CMBB "doesn't properly model" a lot of things. CMBB allows the users to set up the battles any way they prefer, and I think its safe to say that nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a historically accurate soviet artillery barrage that lasts THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE QB OR SCENARIO.

I'm sure it happened all the time, but nobody would play it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. A lengthy, well-considered thread. I agree that the game's artillery could use some oomph and some tweaking of the effects. However...

How much playability is everyone willing to exchange for simulated realism? Basically it's a trade between the two.

While some of the improvements suggested could remain within the current game system, some of them simply cannot be made 'transparent' - they need user intervention. That means more complexity, more things to consider and fiddle with. Every turn.

Personally, I think CMBB is near the apex of the playability/realism curve. If we add much more, it goes down the slippery slope on the far side. I personally don't want to see any significant changes to the interface that would lessen playability.

How about a new CM game: the artillery wars? No map, no units, just a dialogue box where you enter data - number of shells to fire, spread, type of shell, type of barrage, amount to allocate to pre-assault, counterbattery, targetted firing, etc. All those things artillery people are worried about. And then the results could be calculated and bingo! You'll be told if you win or lose. Simple, geeky and realistic (if we include ear-splitting sound effects).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ichadwick:

How much playability is everyone willing to exchange for simulated realism? Basically it's a trade between the two.

[snips]

No it isn't. The old "playability vs. realism" chestnut is one of those things that are both very widely known and almost entirely false.

The reasons why would need a new thread; but for now I invite you to consider the extremely high-fidelity modelling CM has achieved in its handling of armour penetration, and what penalties you imagine this has caused in playability (I'd say "none at all").

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only one major issue with artillery in CMBB. I havent used them outside TRPs a lot, and on the few occasions that I did, I had this frustrating experience again and again:

It takes one to seven minutes, and then the fire doesn't come down where you targeted it, but somewhere completely elsewhere. This happens both with and without LOS of the FO, with and without Command influence.

Adjusting it by putting the target line to the original target doesn't work because a)the fire is so far off that I start a complete new fire mission with completely new count-down, and B) when it finally arrives it is off again.

It might work to adjust the fire on a WYSIWYG technique, that is, like zeroing in your sights on your rifle: when the fire comes down 400m north and 200m east of your intended target, you have to target 400m south and 200m west of your intended target to get the stuff to get it where you want it. But of course to target into that wild will require you to target out of LOS, which means it is practically useless.

I don't know what this is supposed to be. I have read through the manual and it doesn't help.

It doesn't ALWAYS happen, but when it does, the artillery is useless. So I have for allpractical purposes altogether given up on using artillery in CMBB without TRPs.

TRPs work fine. And mortars are deadly. Asa defender, use a well-placed TRP, decorate that spot with some well-placed barbed wire, add a 12cm mortar FO, and you have a WMD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

- When German 144th ID came to Viipurinlahti early July 1944 to help Finns, its artillery was given only preplanned targets, as its lesser flexibility compared to Finnish artillery was known to all.

I hope Andreas would pick up on this and do some independent research from the German POV. [/QB]

I have not been able to give this thread the attention it deserves. I would just like to point out that it is hardly surprising to me that the artillery unit with the less accurate maps is less desired as fire support. Since the Finnish artillery maps were not made available to the Germans, comparing the two is a bit like asking two athletes to do a 100m sprint to find out who is faster, and could one of them please carry a chest of drawers along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...