A minor Quibble Regarding Artillery Pricing and Organization

[YankeeDog]

I should preface this post by stating that I dont play QBs much. Mostly, I play scenarios. However, when playing a scenario I do like to give it my full attention; I guess I feel like I should 'play well' out of respect for the scenario designer's hard work.

Tonight, I felt like playing a little CM, but I didn't want to devote too much time and focus to the games as I had other things to do. Therefore, I decided to give the QB generator in CMAK a whirl for the first time and try a small 'throw away' game or two against the AI.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I was very surprised to discover the discrepancy between Allied (and especially American) and Axis artillery purchase prices. In most time/theater parameters, owing to the fact that many Allied artillery calibers come with substantially more shells, your options when purchasing artillery for a small (1000 point or less) QB are extremely limited. In contrast, if you play Germans you have access to a substantial number of cheap artillery choices, including some very inexpensive 75mm arty options that are affordable in very small (500 pt. or less) battles. Some of these arty types don't pack much hitting power, but at least they give you some indirect fire options in really small battles.

I think I understand the reasoning behind the large Allied shell loads; my guess is that they are meant to refelct that, during most periods of the the war, Allied armies were much better equipped in terms of both Arty tubes and shells. One way to reflect this is to give Allied arty spotters more shells.

However, since CM QB pricing is based on a unit's battlefield functionality, the result of the high Allied shell load is that some of the most common Allied Arty types come at a very high price, too high for small QBs. For example, arguably the most common American arty type of the war, the US 105mm(radio) spotter (w/120 shells), costs a whopping 394 points at regular experience; well outside the "Artillery/Air" allotment in most 1000pt. QBs (unless you choose "unrestricted" force type). In contrast, the German 105mm(radio) spotter costs only 162 points. This is because the German spotter comes with half as many shells (60) and a higher command level (Divisional vs. Regimental - means a longer command delay).

In any event, the net result is that if you are playing Americans and trying purchase a force at 1000 points or below, your options are extremely limited in the Artillery/Air category. Basically, you are limited to 81mm mortars, 75mm guns (historically rare to most TOE types, esp. later in the war), or one of the cheaper Air Support types (I hate playing with Air Support since it's basically a crap shoot). Every once in a while, depending on the battle type and the rarity 'die roll' (if you're playing variable rarity), you might be able to afford 4.2" mortars, but that's about it.

The problem is less severe for the Allies if you play Commonwealth, but even for the Brits what should arguably be the most common arty caliber, the 25pdr, is out of your Arty allotment at the 1000pt. level.

In contrast, the German player at this level has access to a variety of Artillery Calibers and spotter types at this point level, including various 81mm mortar, 75mm gun, 105mm howitzer, 120mm mortar, and even some of the smaller (2-tube) 150mm howitzer spotters (depending on rarity settings). Occasionally, if you're playing one of the more artillery-friendly force types (like Infantry Only) and you get a good rarity 'die roll' you can even afford the 150mm 4-tube spotter at the 1000pt. level, which is a bona fide heavy hitter.

In small QBs, it seems to me that the end result of all this is exactly opposite from the way things should be to reflect historical reality. From what I have read, especially from mid-war on, the Americans and Brits had a much more flexible Artillery system, and as a result it was much easier for commanders in small unit engagements (Company, or even Platoon level) to call in Artillery from the Regimental (105mm) or Divisional (155mm/25pdr) level, and occasionally even higher. As it is now in CM, it is actually the German player who has more flexible Artillery support options in Company-level engagements.

I would note that this kind of Arty purchase price limitation would make more sense to me for the Russians rather than the Americans or British. In general, from what I have read the Russians tended to use Artillery in on a grander scale, and often did not have the flexiblity and C&C structure necessary to 'penny packet' artillery in support of small engagments. As such, it would make sense to force the Russian player to purchase Artillery in larger blocks, going without in small engagements. However, everything I have read about British and American command structure suggests that exactly the opposite was the case, at least from mid-war on. British and American C&C structures for Artillery allowed rapid and specific response from various Artillery assets, sometimes even in support of platoon-level engagements. Nowhere have I read that the Amis and Brits were were unwilling to expend artillery in this type of engagement unless the need was for a large number of shells.

There is a simple solution to all this: Allied purchase options could be amended to include additional Allied arty types with less shells for least in the most common Arty calibers, and especially the very common 105mm and 25pdr. Alternatively, if this isn't possible, I think it would be better if shell loads for roughly equivalent Calibers were simply equalized, and the greater availability of Allied Arty be reflected in response time and rarity.

It's not a huge deal to me; as mentioned, I play mostly scenarios where the designer has the freedom to tweak the shell load of arty spotters as he sees fit. For those occasions when I feel like firing up a quick QB, though, I would appreciate some sort of tweak to the Allied Arty purchasing options.

Cheers,

YD

[Soddball]

1,000 points will buy you (if you're lucky) two companies of infantry and a couple of tanks. Are you saying that divisional level artillery should be priced low enough to allow typical support of such small groups of forces?

[JasonC]

Definitely. US infantry battalions typically attacked by sending one company forward to the objective, with another supporting by a feint or by fire from near the start line. The third was in reserve, tasked with relieving the forward company well after the battle was over and the first counterattacks had been repulsed.

Such an attack would practically always have div arty support. Nearly all the arty support US units received came from div arty. Div arty does not support only massive attacks, it is the normal firepower supporting all the subordinate units of the division. Regimental cannon companies and battalion mortars didn't get a tenth as much ammo and fired far less. For the obvious reasons - limited range made it harder for them to reach the active battle sites, and less command and overhead made it harder to keep them supplied.

It would not be unusual for an attack of that size to be supported by an entire battalion of 105s. That is not a high level of support. High levels of support went into the stratosphere in CM terms, with literally dozens of artillery battalions firing in support of single maneuver battalions. That is unusual, obviously, though it did happen. But a single battalion of div arty 105s was the basic firing unit for most missions.

I must say, what I have seen of CMAK arty seems dramatically overpriced for its combat effectiveness. Armor is the bargain, with ranged heavy weapons its only serious competitor in "bang for the buck" terms (towed guns, MGs, mortars, etc). This price "skew" favors German tactics over US tactics. And the inability to afford the realistic US arty in the first place makes it worse. It is essentially impossible to use realistic US combined arms tactics with the QB point limits on arty and the present prices.

[dalem]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is essentially impossible to use realistic US combined arms tactics with the QB point limits on arty and the present prices.

I agree from what I've tried so far. Is it better with Rarity Off? It's nice having the GIs back, VERY nice, but I can't use them the "correct" way with arty prices the way they are.

-dale

Edited to add--

Ohh, I think I get it - someone in a previous thread already mentioned that the U.S. divisional 105s are missing completely - I checked and that seems true, in the dates I checked. They have "Regimental" 105s and "Divisional" 155s. The 155s are cheaper than the 105s!

So maybe it's just a case of something that got left out?

Rarity On or Off doesn't seem to matter, btw.

[ January 19, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Kozure]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

It is essentially impossible to use realistic US combined arms tactics with the QB point limits on arty and the present prices.

I agree from what I've tried so far. Is it better with Rarity Off? It's nice having the GIs back, VERY nice, but I can't use them the "correct" way with arty prices the way they are.

-dale </font>

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Soddball:

1,000 points will buy you (if you're lucky) two companies of infantry and a couple of tanks. Are you saying that divisional level artillery should be priced low enough to allow typical support of such small groups of forces?

Well, for starters, for most periods of the war, on of the primary artillery calibers I'm talking about, the US 105mm, was attached at the regimental level, not the divisional level. Kind of odd that the Germans, for whom this caliber was a divisional asset, have access to it in smaller QBs, but the Americans don't. I know that German divisions were much smaller than American divisions, but still. . .

JasonC makes some very good points that I completely agree with. At least for US forces, it wasn't all that uncommon to see divisional stuff (which would mostly be 155mm or 4.2" mortar) supporting battalion-level attacks. A battalion level attack in CM terms would often mean only one or two companies on-map and engaged for the time period of a CM scenario.

But my overall point is that things are uneven depending on what side you play. As noted above, if you play Germans in a 1000 pt. QB, you have the choice of a wide variety of Regimental and Divisional level artillery assets. Actually, if you're playing with Rarity off, the German player can even afford 170mm arty and 158mm rockets in some types of 1000pt. QB, which are Corps-level assets!

In most 1000pt. QB types, the only asset the American player can afford above battalion level is the 75mm(radio) spotter, which is a regimental asset. You're a bit better off if you play an "Infantry Only" type battle, since it allows a higher artillery allowance than most others, but even then if you're playing with rarity off, you only add 4.2" mortars (Divisional) and 4.5" gun (Corps). Since neither of these calibers is especially common, they both go away if you put rarity on.

As I mentioned before, the Brits are better off, but they still don't have access to the wide range of caliber, tube, and ammo load choices that the Germans do at this point level.

I suppose you can make the argument that that neither side should have access to Artillery above the Regimental level in small QBs, but the Americans don't even have access to their primary Regimental caliber, the 105mm. And things should be consistent. I see no reason why the Germans should have access to a wide variety Regimental, Divisional and even Corps level assets and the Allies should not. It lead to wierd, artifical situations. For example, if you're playing Germans in a 1000pt. ME, against Americans, you *know* that your opponent can only afford 81mm mortar and 75mm gun. Neither of these calibers is much of a killer - they suppress for a bit, and cause a few casualties, but they aren't squad-wreckers the way 105mm, 120mm and even 150mm stuff that you have access to is. While the Americans did suffer from some equipment deficiences when fighting the Germans, lack of access to medium and heavy caliber arty was not one of them.

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

I highly second these observations.

With the current ammo/pricing scheme the forces who were historically least likely to get artillery support are more likely to actually get it.

The worst thing is when the U.S. artillery gets faster in June 1944. BFC keeps all other parameters the same and so has to make it more expensive. Thus, at the time where decent medium-caliber artillery support was most likely to be available for U.S. troops it is least available in CM.

The current system needs to adjust ammo levels in the default spotters so that historically common artillery is cheaper. So to speak, rarity needs to be done by ammunition as long as youw ant to keep the current pricing scheme.

[ January 19, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[JonS]

Sort of a pile-on ...

Soddball:

1,000 points will buy you (if you're lucky) two companies of infantry and a couple of tanks. Are you saying that divisional level artillery should be priced low enough to allow typical support of such small groups of forces?

"Divisional Artillery" has a couple of meanings.

It could mean all the artillery in a division being fired at a target, which was done IRL, and was a practical proposition for both the US and UK-style forces. In CMAK terms it be very expensive, and would not make for a very interesting target.

It could also mean any of the artillery units held at divisional level, which in the case of UK-style armies was 'all of it', and the US was 'most of it'.

Given that

1) there were 9 batterys of 25-pr (8 guns/bty) in a UK-style infantry divisional artillery and 9 batteries of 105mm (4 guns/bty) in a US inf div arty, and

2) that not co-incidentally there were 9 bns of infantry in each of those divs,

then

yes, it is entirely reasonable that a CMAK force that comprises the better part of a bn from either the US or the UK should have access to a bty of 105mm/25-pr. At least.

Regards

JonS

[MAsta_KFC]

Hear, hear, I want cheaper arty for Allies!! I miss the days of CMBO where the allies could make up for its generally inferior equipment by bombing the bejesus out of the enemy. Then the fight between the survivors and rest of the allies was more fair.

I almost exclusively play QB's and although I don't know much about rarity in RL terms, I can tell you that arty is way overpriced for its game effectiveness. To me, I see CM like a grandeur version of chess, a game which could be taken seriously as a base of challenging fellow intellectuals. If you wanted realism in a fight, then make/play a scenario. If you wanted to prove to your mate you were better, than play a QB.

However, the delimma seems to be balancing the points for a fairer fight. CM has the advantage that it is a computer game which can be patched to fix inadequacies, unlike the good ol' warhammer (and 40k) series which sometimes were seriously imbalanced in points/effectiveness. I've read many arguments about how germans were tactically and technologically superior and I'm not disputing that. These advantages should be offset by a fairer pricing system. And in general I'm pleased in CM that they are. Except the arty with rarity on

Anyways, enough ranting and raving. It's time to take my medication and hopefully BFC will do something about the pricing in the future. There's nothing more satisfying as watching VT airbursts decimating fields of fascist scum

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

...there were 9 batterys...105mm (4 guns/bty) in a US inf div arty...

And 3 batteries of 155mm (4 howitzers/bty) in that same division.

So the battalion should have at least a chance at some of them too.

And that's not counting all the arty (mostly 155mm but some 105mm and a few 4.5") held at corps level, and which was pretty commonly involved. I think the 4.2" mortars were corps units too, though sometimes attached to divisions on an extended basis.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

And 3 batteries of 155mm (4 howitzers/bty) in that same division.

So the battalion should have at least a chance at some of them too.

Right, but there is a better than fair chance that they would be engaged on CB or other 'deep' missions.

And that's not counting all the arty (mostly 155mm but some 105mm and a few 4.5" [and 4.2-in]) held at corps level, and which was pretty commonly involved.

Right, but again, many/most of those would have been working 'deep'. Besides the original parameters were 'divisional arty' (and more specifically 105mm/25-pr), so I deliberately left those bns out of the discussion anyway.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

And 3 batteries of 155mm (4 howitzers/bty) in that same division.

So the battalion should have at least a chance at some of them too.

Right, but there is a better than fair chance that they would be engaged on CB or other 'deep' missions. </font>

[JonS]

I don't have access to anything explicit at the moment. However, consider this: longer range = greater PEr. Also, larger calibre = larger lethal area. Also, divisional assets can be controlled by the division without asking for permission.

Combining the first two makes the 155s less suitable for direct support (note: less suitable, not unsuitable).

Also, something else to consider: a 155mm how. positioned approx 1/3rd of its range behind the frontline can cover a frontage of 7500yds, or about 4.25 miles. Which is about the frontage of a div in WWII (granted that higher and lower exceptions are easy to find). That still leaves 2/3rds of its range to play in the enemies backyard. Ignoring that in favour of direct support - especially when 3 bns of 105s which can do that better are available anyway - strikes me a terrible waste.

Regards

JonS

P.S. On reflection I will grant that they may not have been doing much self-selected CB though. In the RA that is a Corps responsibility - though the corps CBO could call on any guns within his ken for shooting, and was not restricted to 'corps assets'.

[ January 20, 2004, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Brian Smith]

I found the same problem in 1,000 to 1,500 pt QBs using Australian troops - couldn't afford any off-map arty support in combined arms fights.

[JasonC]

155s were not deep CB weapons. They were not used only by higher echelon shoots or against "operational" targets. In CM module terms, they fired as many missions as 105s (few rounds per module), actually somewhat more. The ammo usage numbers tell the story. They were not a scarce form of support, at all.

The US had as many battalions of arty above the division level as at the division level. They were organized into groups, the size of regiments, typically composed of 2 battalions of howitzers and 1 battalion of guns.

Lighter groups had 155s for the howitzers and 4.5 inch for the guns. Some, the middling "weight", had 155 guns for the guns (medium). And some, had both 155 guns for the guns, and 8 inch for the howitzers. The last model of group could be called "heavy" and made up about 1/3 of the total. There was one of these groups per division, on average.

The guns (as opposed to howitzers) had counterbattery missions. All the howitzers were meant to pummel the front line, reaching back to the rear edge of the maneuver element defensive zone. The reason for holding so much firepower above the division level was to allow full use of its range (and US motorization, including motorized supply) to shift fires to critical points and to mass fires.

(A smaller number of super heavies used 240mm howitzers and 8 inch guns - but those were rare and used 2 gun batteries, thus only 6 pieces per battalion. They would be essentially "seige arty").

What is all means for CM scale combat is that 105s were available for entirely vanilla, day to day fights. Whenever the opposition rose above the routine, or a major push was underway, 155s would be available in force. When the Germans counterattacked, full battalions at a time of 155s would fire in defense of the US front line unit under attack - routinely.

Massed 155 firepower was a factor of immense operational importance, and anyone who thinks they weren't being used regularly has a very pinched view of how the Americans fought and why they were tough. The push to St Lo ran the Germans out of infantry, 3 battalions per day, because of 155 firepower. The Mortain counterattack broke apart under 155 fire. Elsenborn ridge held against an entire SS Panzer corps because of massed 155 fire.

Americans without 155s are like Germans without "cats"...

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

155s were not deep CB weapons. They were not used only by higher echelon shoots or against "operational" targets.

It's good to see the 'I know what you wrote, I don't need to really read it!' affliction is alive and well.

Going up a few posts I actually wrote:

... there is a better than fair chance that [divisional level 155mm hows] would be engaged on ... 'deep' missions.

Now, better than fair chance is an admittedly vague term, but any reasonable definition should leave it a rather long way from used only by higher echelon shoots or against "operational" targets. Very roughly, 50% should be your ball-park, not 100%.

Also note that 'deep' is in inverted commas. I'm not necessarily talking about miles and miles behind the enemies lines. Rather I'm talking about any missions that take place beyond the map edge in a CM battle.

So, what does that give us? 1/3 the number of batterys are spending half their time/missions on targets beyond the scope of a CM battlefield. So, overall, 155mms in CM should be about 1/6th as common as 105mm. On average.

Looking at it another way: nearly every US bn sized CM battle should have a bty of 105mms. Roughly every sixth US bn sized battle should have a bty of 105mm plus a bty of 155mm. On average.

And Jason, we all know how much you like averages.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

I haven't played any big engagements with the Americans in CMAK yet (I'm having too much fun watching the Commonwealth troops get slaughtered in their tin cans), but when I played as the Americans in BO, I always assumed that my battalion+ attacks were part of a serious offensive effort. Therefore, I would often give them two or three batteries of 105s and a battery of 155s to play with. If it was against an enemy in a town or one that heavily fortified, I might throw in a battery of 8" as well, but that was rare.

Michael

[MAsta_KFC]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Therefore, I would often give them two or three batteries of 105s and a battery of 155s to play with. If it was against an enemy in a town or one that heavily fortified, I might throw in a battery of 8" as well, but that was rare.

Yeah, but CMAK rarity and pricing being what it is, I doubt you could afford that much. And even if you could, would it be worth it in terms of other potential units you could spend you points on? The oppurtunity cost is just far too great for some Arty to be a feasable option for winning a serious match.

[Redwolf]

The point here is is not to make the artillery for the allies cheaper for the same capability or to reduce rarity.

What we need to do (as long as the basic artillery model can't be changed) is to give the allied spotters less ammunition and then set a lower price based on that.

That way you are more likely to see a serious artillery module on the Allied side, which is how it should be.

Right now the Allied spotters get more ammo, but that additional ammo pushes them out of pricing range - so they don't show up at all. Just give them less amo and lower the price reflecting that.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MAsta_KFC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Therefore, I would often give them two or three batteries of 105s and a battery of 155s to play with. If it was against an enemy in a town or one that heavily fortified, I might throw in a battery of 8" as well, but that was rare.

Yeah, but CMAK rarity and pricing being what it is, I doubt you could afford that much. And even if you could, would it be worth it in terms of other potential units you could spend you points on? The oppurtunity cost is just far too great for some Arty to be a feasable option for winning a serious match. </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I should note that I play a different kind of game than you probably do. I play solitaire against the AI and set up situations that I find interesting. I am quite willing to give one side or the other bonus points in order to get the force ratios I think were historically the case. I don't feel obliged to design a "fair fight" since those were rare in real life.

If you are playing against a human opponent who urgently desires an equal chance to win, my method can present problems, I recognize.

Michael

I do something similar Michael, but at low-medium pt QB levels it's still very much a problem.

-dale

[Redwolf]

If you are playing against a human opponent who urgently desires an equal chance to win, my method can present problems, I recognize.

Repricing the Allied artillery as indicated would not make chances to win more equal.

It would just increase the chance of more realistic OOBs to be purchased.

[Abteilung]

Perhaps the logistical issues surrounding the shipment of heavy weapons to the theatre are accurately reflected in the pricing. That is my opinion on the matter. Personally, I like having to use proper tactics and take lots of time to move ground. Moving mud was a lot slower than most gamers I've run into care to realistically simulate. Rather, they'd like to put in just enough history to benefit their style of gameplay. Maybe I'm guilty of the same crime, then again, I really do try to re-create the situations faced in those times, and not take the easy way out by simply spamming the map with arty and then rushing the "flags" with mobile units.

While that type of battle has a time and place (may have happened once or twice, but even the Soviets couldn't plaster every sqaure inch of possibly occupied terrain all the time), it is about as challenging as watching paint dry. No amount of skill overcomes the odds in those situations. Maybe if I were to get real good and drunk, procure some pretzels, and then set about the task of assaulting a prepared German defense, I'd end up doing the same....hmmm *shrugs*

Not tyring to take away from anyone's enjoyment here, just my comments from the peanut gallery.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Abteilung:

Perhaps the logistical issues surrounding the shipment of heavy weapons to the theatre are accurately reflected in the pricing.

No. If there were shells in the ammo dumps it was generally raining 105mm on the Germans whenever necessary.

-dale

[Abteilung]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

Perhaps the logistical issues surrounding the shipment of heavy weapons to the theatre are accurately reflected in the pricing.

No. If there were shells in the ammo dumps it was generally raining 105mm on the Germans whenever necessary.

-dale </font>