Allied arty

[Bruceov]

In the patch please do something about the unreasonable cost of arty in CMAK for allies

[flamingknives]

A 4-gun troop 25pdr spotter would be nice. Other wise, the only way to make allied arty cheaper is to make it less good, which would be ahistorical, or give it fewer shells, which would also be at odds with the historical usage of it.

As they all have radios (late war) and short delays, they're going to be costly.

[Redwolf]

Sorry flamingknifes, but reducing the shell count is precisely the right thing to do.

Because the realism hit from having fewer shells than enough for continuous fire is a far lighter realism hit than not having any medium artillery support at all (for Allies when Germans have it).

[flamingknives]

The rarity seems wrong, though. 25pdrs are frequently at +20%, while 3" mortars (which are no more numerous) are at +0%.

WRT the number of shells, it would seem that allies should get a larger arty allocation.

Even so, I get the impression that CM is designed for scenarios more than QBs, so the arty modules are modelled closer to reality rather than allowing for QB point constraints.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The rarity seems wrong, though. 25pdrs are frequently at +20%, while 3" mortars (which are no more numerous) are at +0%.

The rarity doesn't matter because the base price is too high to start from.

WRT the number of shells, it would seem that allies should get a larger arty allocation.

Well, of course.

But we are stuck with the simple CM artillery model, and the only way to fix the problem below is to lower the ammo count.

Even so, I get the impression that CM is designed for scenarios more than QBs, so the arty modules are modelled closer to reality rather than allowing for QB point constraints.

Aw, come on.

The prices for artillery given in CM are entirely made for Quickbattles - because in a scenario you don't pay for it anyway.

The prices are Quickbattle prices and right now there is a "bug" in them that excludes medium artillery where it would be most realistic to have - in late-war allied forces.

Again[/], I don't argue that a low ammo count is realistic for Allies - but it is the far lesser realism hit than having no Allied medium artillery.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The rarity seems wrong, though. 25pdrs are frequently at +20%, while 3" mortars (which are no more numerous) are at +0%.

The difference is that 3" mortars are battalion assets, i.e. the battalion commander has constant access to them. The 25-pdr, while normally directed by a, to all intents and porpoises, permanently assigned FOO team, would not be available if it was busy firing elsewhere as part of an UNCLE or VICTOR target or a fire plan supporting another battalion.

I think you can argue that the 20% is too high, but not about the presence of a rarity factor. IMO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

The rarity seems wrong, though. 25pdrs are frequently at +20%, while 3" mortars (which are no more numerous) are at +0%.

The difference is that 3" mortars are battalion assets, i.e. the battalion commander has constant access to them. The 25-pdr, while normally directed by a, to all intents and porpoises, permanently assigned FOO team, would not be available if it was busy firing elsewhere as part of an UNCLE or VICTOR target or a fire plan supporting another battalion.

I think you can argue that the 20% is too high, but not about the presence of a rarity factor. IMO. </font>

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Sorry flamingknifes, but reducing the shell count is precisely the right thing to do.

Because the realism hit from having fewer shells than enough for continuous fire is a far lighter realism hit than not having any medium artillery support at all (for Allies when Germans have it).

Alternatively, couldn't the rarity penalty be set as a bonus?

My understanding is that the problem people are having is that they cannot afford to buy American artillery, especially in smaller battles, and that this does not reflect historical practice, as the Americans were known for their relatively ample supply of artillery assets. There are several possible workarounds for this problem:

1. Reduce the price by lowering the number of shells per FO. Unfortunately, fewer shells is ahistorical.

2. Lower the base price of American artillery without changing the number of shells. The base price supposed to reflect the effectiveness of a unit in the game, however, so reducing the base price isn't an appropriate way to reflect historical usage.

3. Lower the rarity cost, even to the point of making it a rarity "bonus". Since the objection seems to be that players cannot make selections that are "historical", adjust the rarity system to reflect "historical" pattens of availability.

[Beta1]

I've come up agasint this problem as well. In small-medium QB I can rarely buy artillery as allies due to the cost. I think in the current games I'm playing (all around 2000 points or so) theres only one game where I have a tube over 3" and thats a 4.2" mortar.

Its definately changed a lot since BO, as the brits I used to take the field with a 3" & 4.2" mortar FOs and a 4.5" gun one.

Now I'm lucky to get a 4.2" on its own and as a result normally end up buying a on map battery of 81"/3" mortars, a couple of mortar carriers or a couple of 105s or 25pdrs for direct fire as I cannot afford the support otherwise.

While the 3" mortar option is an acceptable alternative the 81s dont have enough ammo and the on map guns are much more limiting even when provided with transport.

[Beta1]

I forgot to add:

I'm in favour of reducing the number of shells per FO to bring the cost down. For those who like their historical accuracy wouldnt it be possible to add another lower ammo loadout FO for the common allied medium arty (105s, 25pdrs, maybe 4.2" mortars and 4.5" guns)

[YankeeDog]

I started a thread a few days ago that discussed this issue in detail:

A Minor Quibble Regarding Artillery Pricing and Organization

As is detailed in the thread by myself and others, in small to moderate-sized QBs, some of the the most common allied arty calibers, and especially US 105mm, are priced right out of the Arty "Budget."

Especially the American Arty choices are limited enough across a broad enough spectrum of QB sizes and types, that I would consider this a bug. Michael, if you would like to add it to the bug/feature request thread, I would greatly apprecaite it.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

YD - I'd be happy to. If you could state your conclusions for me, that would be a big help. Basically what I need to know is

a) what is wrong in CM that you feel needs fixing

what needs to be done in the patch to address the problem (as specific as possible).

I can include a link to your original discussion (I see it is three pages now) as a reference. The initial post of the patch request thread is intended to be easy to refer to rather than a discussion of the whys and "this is what they dids" - that has been ably covered in the other threads.

If you don't have a specific proposal (ie "Change US 150mm Radio FO from rarity 150 to rarit 120 and change cost from 525 to 500") that is fine, but some level of detail would be appreciated in order for the suggestion to have value.

[JasonC]

I like the suggestion of allowing modules with half the ammo for half the price. But I also have another suggestion.

Substantially increase the maximum allowed percentage of points allocated to artillery and air support. The low limits currently used were set back in the CMBO days, when US 155mm FOs with 3 minute response time and shells that walked in the fly to exactly where you wanted them cost 208 points as regulars. Those days are not these days. And 12.5% to 25% is not enough for players to choose an artillery centered strategy.

Arguably, the base prices are way too high for the effectiveness. Perhaps so, perhaps they should be substantially lowered. But in the meantime, if they are overpriced why not let people hang themselves by overpaying for the stuff, if they want to? By e.g. increasing the allowed percentage going to arty to 50% or so.

Right now it is possible to take nearly all infantry forces, or to take maximum armor plus maximum support spent on towed guns, and thus focus on an infantry war or on the armor war. But the HE side of things is not really allowed as a focus. You can take a battalion of infantry or a company of armor, but you can't take the fire support of an artillery battalion - which was if anything more common in the real deal.

Which is hardly realistic. The US in particular often had small maneuver forces supported by powerful artillery. Disallowing that combined arms mixture by QB budget fiat seems to me a distorted view of things, and one that forces everybody to fight in an armor and direct fire centered fashion. It seems to me if the Germans can sometimes buy a ~900 point platoon of Panthers then the US should be able to sometimes buy fire support from a battalion of 155s.

[YankeeDog]

OK, lemme see if I can come up with a brief summary. . .

Problem: Many historically very common Allied artillery calibers, and especially US 105mm and CW 25pdr, come with such high shell loads that they are priced out of the artillery "budget" for small to mid-size QBs. The Germans do not have this problem, resulting in the ahistorical effect that it is easier for the German player to have artillery support for a large portion of QBs than it is for the Allied player.

Solution: The best solution is probably to add a few additional Allied spotter types in the most common calibers that come with lower ammo loads. This would fix the problem without messing up play balance in scenarios that have already been created (as would happen if the existing spotter unit's ammo loads were reduced). I would put top priority on 105mm and 25pdr "half-load" spotters, but it is also worth considering whether the Allies should have half-load 81mm and 3in. spotters to balance the Germans' access to the very cheap 75mm arty types.

Thanks again,

YD

Edit: I think JasonC's idea to increase the arty Budget for Allied forces is an interesting complentary idea. Certainly, historically speaking the Allies were able to provide substantial Artillery in support of even small-level engagements than the Germans were ever able to do. So long as the budget increase is kept reasonable, I don't think it would lead to unfair QB situations. Even with the Allied player's rapid response and ubiquitous radios, there are distinct disadvantages to going artillery heavy that such a player would have to deal with.

[ January 23, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[dalem]

I like JasonC's other suggestion too - increase the percentage of artillery points allowed for the Allies. Won't address the cost issue, but at least it will let me occasionally use 105s.

-dale

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

My understanding is that the problem people are having is that they cannot afford to buy American artillery, especially in smaller battles, and that this does not reflect historical practice, as the Americans were known for their relatively ample supply of artillery assets. There are several possible workarounds for this problem:

1. Reduce the price by lowering the number of shells per FO. Unfortunately, fewer shells is ahistorical.

2. Lower the base price of American artillery without changing the number of shells. The base price supposed to reflect the effectiveness of a unit in the game, however, so reducing the base price isn't an appropriate way to reflect historical usage.

3. Lower the rarity cost, even to the point of making it a rarity "bonus". Since the objection seems to be that players cannot make selections that are "historical", adjust the rarity system to reflect "historical" pattens of availability.

Well, let us not forget what these prices are for. In CM, the purchase prices for artillery are only for Quickbattles. Scenario people are affected by other equipment prices because they double-server as knockout points, but that is not the case for off-map artillery.

In Quickbattles we want a measurable way to evaluate our tactical skills and in the absence of standard scenarios with documented past outcomes the only way to do this is halfway balanced battles.

We all know that balanced battles were rare in reality, but this is what we want. The situation we want is "ok, we are the U.S. army and we have the typical U.S. army equipment and TO&E, but in this particular engagement our efficiency is lowered to the same efficiency as the Germans due to the fact that we don't have the usual overkill of artillery ammunition.

So that makes 1) a better option than 2). Just lowering the price would make the Allied force more effective. 1) would make historical artillery available without making it unbalanced. Option 3) is ineffective, the base price is too high already.

Before scenario people get too arrogant, two remarks: 1) almost all scenarios are much more balanced than typical historical clashes, too. And 2), all this talk is about increasing realism. It is the current pricing which is forcing Quickbattlers to play with ahistorical forces - Germans with artillery, Allies without.

[Redwolf]

Here is a more concrete proposal how the prices should be lowered:

Do not simply give half the ammo and half the price.

The price of a two half-loaded spotters must be higher than the one spotter with full ammo.

The most useful baseline is to assume a base cost of 30 points for the spotter himself.

Let us consider a U.S. 105mm spotter in April 1943. This spotter is actually the biggest of the realism problems. It is a regimental spotter of a very common caliber, and this is an extremely common kind of support fire in CM-sized battles and for fire support in an actual battle (as opposed to preparation, CB etc.).

That thing costs 360 points which is just out of line for an kind of TCP-able Quickbattle. It comes with 120 rounds.

Compare that to a Axis 105mm spotter which would be much rarer in reality, which is available for 148 points for 60 rounds.

IMHO, the correct thing to do would be to would be to create a U.S. spotter with 40 rounds (so that it can be even more common than the Axis one), and the price would be as follows: 360 - 30 = 330 points for 120 rounds. The price for a 40 round spotter would be 330 / 120 * 40 + 30 = 140 points. If you want to create a 60 rounds spotter that would be 195 points.

The U.S. module is more expensive for the same rounds than the Axis one because it is faster, so much is OK if you consider price by pure combat value.

You would get the balance between U.S. and Germans via rarity. Unfortunately what you cannot do is use CM's normal rarity for it. CM gives both the same rarity - 0%. CM does this because rarity is only relative to other equipment in the same force, it does not compare one force to another, so you cannot use CM rarity to solve this problem.

But what you can do is to give the Axis spotter more ammo so that it is bumped out of smaller Quickbattles and takes up good chunks of points. Example: If you give it 90 rounds, then the cost would be (148 - 30) / 60 * 90 + 30 = 206. Historically speaking that would simulate the fact that the Germans had far fewer batteries than the U.S., so you have to go to an important fight to get one but if you do you get some serious support for it.

Now you give the Allies a greater allowance of Artillery purchase points and you are all set.

It would even work well by just doing one of the two latter steps.

I am willing to do a proposal for every battery in the game, evaluate it against the allowance in Quickbattles and create a mailing list for interested parties so that we can duke out a scheme before presenting it to BFC. Unfortunately, unless I hear otherwise, I have to assume BFC does not plan to address with problem at all, either because they don't see the need or because the 1.01 patch is already feature-finalized and supposed to be the last. I would be happy to hear otherwise.

[YankeeDog]

I think you raise some good points Redwolf.

I certainly agree that if "half-load" spotters are implemented, there should be a modest premium for the smaller load spotter. Two half-load spotters are considerably more flexible on the battlefield than one full spotter.

I think the other ideas you raise might be worth pursuing if BFC shows interest and inclination, but honestly I'd be pretty happy with just a sub-200 point 105mm/25pdr spotter, and a sub-100 point 81mm/3in. spotter for the Allies.

Cheers,

YD

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Snipped:

1. Reduce the price by lowering the number of shells per FO. Unfortunately, fewer shells is ahistorical.

2. Lower the base price of American artillery without changing the number of shells. The base price supposed to reflect the effectiveness of a unit in the game, however, so reducing the base price isn't an appropriate way to reflect historical usage.

3. Lower the rarity cost, even to the point of making it a rarity "bonus". Since the objection seems to be that players cannot make selections that are "historical", adjust the rarity system to reflect "historical" pattens of availability.

Snipped:

So that makes 1) a better option than 2). Just lowering the price would make the Allied force more effective. 1) would make historical artillery available without making it unbalanced. Option 3) is ineffective, the base price is too high already.

</font>

[YankeeDog]

The problem with trying to take care of the problem with a negative rarity rating is that you would have to give US 105mm arty a very large negative rarity to make it affordable even in a 1000-pt. QB, which isn't all that small as QBs go, especially for TCP/IP players. This would end up trading one problem for another since really cheap, highly capable Allied arty would give the Allied player a considerable advantage, especially in infantry heavy fights.

To make post-June, 1944 US 105mm arty affordable for a 1000pt. QB with the present shell load, you'd have to give it a rarity of -40%, a far greater negative rarity than any other unit in the game.

Much less problematic to simply create a half-load 105mm spotter.

I would also disagree with your assertion that lower shell load allied spotters are 'ahistorical'. Shell loads in general are unrealistic and ahistorical, and I don't see how giving the option of large or small shell load makes things any more or less realistic. IRL, commanders would decide how many shells to expend on a target depending on the perceived value of that target and the necessity of winning the overall engagement - actual supply of shells only sometimes came into play. By late war, Allied Arty FOs could call in literally hundreds of shells from numerous tubes within minutes if a really important target like an armored column showed up. Conversely, a platoon commander resquesting arty support to help repel a small German infantry probe might receive a small fire mission, but not get a sustained, multi-battery barrage. Just becasue allied arty units generally had plenty of shells doesn't mean that they only threw them around in large bunches. You could make this contention for the Russians, who tended to use Arty mostly as large, pre-planned barrages, but I don't think it holds water for the Americans or Brits. A small number of shells in support of a small (Company level) engagement sounds completely realistic to me.

If you want complete realism, from 1944 on you'd have to give Americans and Brits a massive point advantage, and make Armor as a whole extremely rare for the Germans. I don't think anybody would seriously advocate putting this into the QB pricing system.

To me, a good QB pricing system should create reasonably balanced fights while encouraging historically reasonable, although not necessarily 100% accuracte, force selections. At present, I think the Arty pricing system is falling short on both counts.

Cheers,

YD

[REVS]

I'd like to suggest that we look at this issue from another, non-historical perspective, completely.

For many people, CMAK is a 3D military history simulator. And they argue from that point of view. Fine.

But for many purchasers, CMAK is also a cool game to play. And I'd like to argue purely from that point of view. So I'll happily concede from the start that what I'm suggesting is completely inaccurate from an historical perspective.

Why cannot CMAK set up the gamer's favourite, the QuickBattle Meeting Engagement (a most un-historical little item anyway), to enhance CMAK purely as a game, giving both sides relative equality of opportunity in purchasing gear? If one side can purchase some artillery, then so can the other. As artillery is so important in MEs, not allowing it to the allies, even in the popular 1000pt ME format, really is just a hassle, no matter how 'historically accurate' a thousand grogs prove it to be.

All that would entail is tweaking the purchase points (and ammo loads) for various bits of gear, so that both sides get a reasonably equal amount of toys to play with. Say, if Allied artillery now costs say, 200 points for 200 rounds, but you can only buy 150 points of artillery in a 1000pt QB (using round figures here!), why cannot the game be tweaked, purely for the very gamey meeting angagements) so that Allied artillery downscales both in point costs and ammo (so that, say, 100 rounds are available for 100 points, to keep the maths simple).

Somehow I suspect that in the long run, BFC should look hard at the 'gamey' appeal of their games, otherwise they could be tossing out a massive market sector if good competition ever arrives on the scene. In the long run, it doesn't pay to ignore the customer's needs.

They can keep the rest of CMAK as purely historical as the driven snow (or should that be driven desert dust?) for scenarios and other encounters, but a recognition of the fun, gamey appeal of CMAK would be a refreshing recognition that there are oodles of people like me who might have an interest in military history, but play CMAK purely as a fun game.

Finally, I pose the question that in what way would this un-historical tweak that I'm proposing be damaging to the game?

[Jarmo]

Half or one third load spotters sound like an excellent proposition.

That'd give more flexibility in prep bombardments too.

You rarely wish to drop 120 rounds of 105mm into one specific spot.

[YankeeDog]

REVS - point well taken. Not everybody is all that concerned with 'historical accuracy' in their QBs.

In this particular case, I don't think there's a need to make a compromise in realism for playbility. I think that ultimately, half-load spotters would be appreciated by both "Gamey Bastards" as well as most "Anal Historians."

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Snipped:

1. Reduce the price by lowering the number of shells per FO. Unfortunately, fewer shells is ahistorical.

2. Lower the base price of American artillery without changing the number of shells. The base price supposed to reflect the effectiveness of a unit in the game, however, so reducing the base price isn't an appropriate way to reflect historical usage.

3. Lower the rarity cost, even to the point of making it a rarity "bonus". Since the objection seems to be that players cannot make selections that are "historical", adjust the rarity system to reflect "historical" pattens of availability.

Snipped:

So that makes 1) a better option than 2). Just lowering the price would make the Allied force more effective. 1) would make historical artillery available without making it unbalanced. Option 3) is ineffective, the base price is too high already.

</font>

[MAsta_KFC]

I'm in favour of either:

1) Half load spotters or

2) Increasing the artillery percentage allotment for allied QB's.

I think the latter of the two would be easier for BFC to implement. Half load spotters would involve a bit more work to add in a patch, I'm not sure if BFC would be willing to spend that much time on it. The latter would be easier to 'toggle'.