1000pt Meeting Engagement Allied Artillery

[YankeeDog]

Jeez, poetry, even. . .

Thanks for bringing up this issue with the rest of the BFC team, Matt.

This issue has actually been brought up on several different threads, so for easy reference, here are links to the other two threads I think are most directly on topic:

Allied Arty

A Minor Quibble Regarding Artillery Pricing and Organization

Between this thread and the two above, I think there's a pretty good cross-section of perspectives on the issue, as well is, IMHO, some good suggestions on how things might be improved. Of course, there's also a bit of unproductive ranting, but what do you expect on the forum - at least you know there's lots of people out there who are passionate about your games!

I'm glad to hear that you guys will take a serious look at the current pricing structure of Artillery and what the actual net effects are in QB games. I strongly suspect that these net effects are exactly opposite to what BFC intended.

Cheers,

YD

[REVS]

Great to hear the news of the review of the situation.

Just re-read my postings on this topic, and my apologies to Madmatt for going over the top with all the talk about 'arrogance', etc.

Just got a bit steamed up about the silence. Sorry about that.

As a busy working person, about the biggest games I ever have time for are 1000pts max, and the loss of artillery really stuffed up the game completely for me, and I suspect for many other people in a similar situation.

[Abteilung]

Madmatt: If I may address you for a moment (hope you don't mind). I'd like to comment that I think that current force selections and pricing for Artillery, while a bit on the high side, are well balanced. The cheaper Axis artillery is almost a waste of points considering its very low loadout of rounds and low number of tubes generally associated with them (low firepower, too). The only exception being the 81mm mortar, 6 tube spotter with a radio (imo). That one is a good deal, but the Allies have good options in the mortar department, too. I am always able to buy mortars as Allied. One British variety can fire for 5 minutes straight. I'm not sure what more anyone wants.

Mass arty spam was one of the reasons I stopped playing CMBO and CMBB sooner than I really wanted to. I just got sick of every battle being the same thing: Mass HE spam followed by cherry picked tanks and SMG infantry. I'm sure that whatever is done will be done with utmost consideration for accuracy and overall balance, but please do not change the game to suit others when they can be made happy already by simply creating their own scenarios in the editor if they wish to partake in arty-centric battles.

I'd rather see an expansion to include all the vehicles from CM:BB (except maybe the Soviet ones), so that some of the lower caliber individuals such as myself can setup scenarios from 1940 in the low countries and maybe parts of France and Poland. That's just a wish on my part, however. Thanks for reading, I appreciate your time.

=)

Edited to make the post

[Madmatt]

I tend to agree Abteilung but it would seem that we may have a sitation here that needs looking into.

One problem though with increasing the artillery point ratio or creating new *pint* sized units is that you have to remember that whatever we do to accomodate human players will also affect the A.I.

The A.I. is not as good at utilizing artillery as a human and those are points spent that could in themselves throw a battle against the A.I. out of whack as well, but the other way (against it).

We have to walk a very thin tight rope and try and balance realism, reduced cherry picking, A.I. ability and over all consistentcy in all we do and modifying costs or point ratios is very tricky. But I did bring it to the attention of the rest of the guys to look over.

One quick question though, in 1.0, if you play a 1000 point ME, stadard rariety but with Unrestricted forces, how many points to you get allocated for Artillery? In 1.01 you get 175, which does give the Allies some options. Was it not 175 in v1.0. I would test it myself but in all the testing of 1.01 I seem to have blown away my original CMAK exe! DOh!

Also, if we DO decide to make a change, it won't make it into the 1.01 patch... Sorry

Madmatt

[Redwolf]

The limit is 175 (17.5%) if forces are unrestricted.

For combined arms, which is usually preferred, it is 125 (12.5%).

Defense has 250 (25%) and attack has 375 (also 25%) in combined arms.

My suggestion for a fix would be:

1) reordering the U.S. and U.K artillery module's prices by lowering the ammunition, so that the more common modules are cheaper. The primary example is the 105mm module which should be cheaper than the 155mm module. Very roughly it would work to cut all Allied module's ammo in half and the 105mm and 25pdr modules to 1/3rd. As I offered elsewhere I can come up with a complete list on request.

2) raising the purchase limit, especially in combined arms, at least for Allies. I think 25% in MEs combined arms, 35% in attack combined arms and 35% in ME unrestricted sound reasonable.

3) I think it would be better to account for the faster U.S. artillery from June 1944 by keeping the price the same and drop ammo some more. You don't want U.S. artillery to become less common when it became most overwhelming in reality. I understand this might be more complicated to code.

%%

Note that change 2) would be useless without 1) as some common modules are too much out of line for now. Just adjusting the purchase limit would mean nothing else than more historically rare modules.

[YankeeDog]

Matt -

"Unrestricted" force type does give an Arty budget of 175 pts. for a 1000pt. ME in 1.0, so this is unchanged in 1.01.

I don't think things should become too focused on just the 1000pt. ME. For example, when I play QBs, I generally play small (500-800pt.) Infantry Only attack/defense battles. In these types of battles, the German artillery hegemony really becomes a problem for both realism and fun.

Also, I do not advocate "pint-sized" arty spotters as a fix, and I can see how this might mess up both AI games and vs. human games. What I would advocate is the addition of a few additional allied spotters with shell loads more in line with the German spotter shell loads. This shouldn't mess up the AI, since the AI already has to deal with spotters with these shell loads on the German side.

These "half load" spotters would still be somewhat more expensive than their German equivalents because Allied Arty is generally more responsive, but they would be in the same ballpark, and so the balance problem would be largely eliminated.

I actually think the problem would be 90% fixed with the addition of just two additional spotters:

1) a 4-tube, 60 shell Divisional level US 105mm spotter. This spotter is absolutely identical in specs to the German 105mm spotter, and would represent an assigned battery from the Divisional Artillery Battalion. JasonC details this idea in the "Allied Arty" thread I referenced above.

2) a 4-tube, 60 shell Divisional level Brit 25pdr spotter as a rough equivalent for CW troops. Again in the Allied Arty thread, there is details on this idea, though I should note that there is some debate as to whether or not the Brits normally fired 25pdrs in half-troops. Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal - just because a battery has 8 tubes doesn't necessarily mean it uses all of them on all targets.

Furthermore, the problem would be pretty much 100% fixed with the addition of just two more spotters:

3) a US 105mm VT spotter similar to (1) above. Right now, 105mm VT is 511 points at Regular, making it realistically impossible to purchase in all but the very largest QBs.

4) some sort of low-tube, relatively low ammo count spotter to balance the many small 75mm spotters the German player has for small QBs. I think there are at least two good options here: (a) a 3-tube 81mm spotter, representing support from a platoon of M4 mortar carriers , and/or ( a 3-tube 75mm spotter representing a platoon of M8 HMCs in support. Ammo count for these units would be reduced in proportion to their tube count, so a 3-tube 81mm spotter would presumably have a shell count around 105 shells, and the 75mm 3-tube spotter would have around 60 shells. I note that there are no 3-tube spotters currently in the game. If spotters have to be a multiple of 2 for some game engine reason, I would then advocate that both these spotters be 2-tube spotters. I don’t think that this is necessarily unrealistic. In general, vehicle mounted artillery has a lower rate of fire due to crowded working conditions around the weapon. It’s also worth nothing that both of these support formations are organic to the US Armored Infantry Bn TOE, and therefore should presumably be Battalion-level assets. The addition of these spotters would be an A+ in my book.

I also think it's worth considering bumping up at least the Allied arty budget, and to be fair probably both sides, by 20% or so for all battle types. Artillery in CMAK is significantly more expansive than it was in CMBO, and as such you need more point to purchase a realistic level of support.

While we're on the subject of Allied TOEs, it's also a bit frustrating that there is no US Armored Infantry Company(-) available - you have to buy US Armored infantry with its full complement of HTs, which make them realistically impractical in QBs. Who wants an infantry company with 22 M3A1 HTs on the CM battlefield? By 1944, weren't the M3s seen mostly as transport assets, not support, and therefore left behind at the attack start line? This is a subject for another thread, though.

And, hey, no problem about any changes not making 1.01. I actually wasn't expecting a fix that quickly. I suspect we'll have quite a long time to enjoy any changes once they're made before CMX2 makes its debut.

Cheers,

YD

[Other Means]

Styx Matt? we're all doomed.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

2) a 4-tube, 60 shell Divisional level Brit 25pdr spotter as a rough equivalent for CW troops. Again in the Allied Arty thread, there is details on this idea, though I should note that there is some debate as to whether or not the Brits normally fired 25pdrs in half-troops. Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal - just because a battery has 8 tubes doesn't necessarily mean it uses all of them on all targets.

Mr. flamingpicky would like to point out that it's an 8 gun battery consisting of 2 4 gun troops

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by Other Means:

Styx Matt? we're all doomed.

Took ya long enough...

slackers...all of ya!

Madmatt

[flamingknives]

Naaa.

I'm too young to know of these styx people.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

Styx Matt? we're all doomed.

Took ya long enough...

slackers...all of ya!

Madmatt </font>

[CMplayer]

As Madmatt said, MEs are a somewhat artificial situation. It happened, but not nearly as often as the attack/defence kinds of scenarios. To me this would be a reason to optimize balance in MEs, i.e. that both sides can get more or less the same amount of artillery bang. Because MEs are used by players who want a competitive balanced game... the same sorts of players who would welcome an option where allies play against allies or axis against axis, to get perfectly balanced kit. So I don't think any arguments from realism or availability should apply to MEs. Gameability, playability and balance should be the overriding concern there.

[ January 30, 2004, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal - just because a battery has 8 tubes doesn't necessarily mean it uses all of them on all targets.

Personally, I think it is a big deal. Unless someone can show that the regular employment was on the troop level, not on the battery level. While I appreciate the information from Forty that Mike has provided, I think there is more to this than just having an FOO per troop (if indeed this was what happened in practice), because there are questions about fire control for individual troops, and also about actual employment, on the ground. One thing that is being raved about the effect of UK artillery is the 8-gun battery, and that seems to sit very badly with the idea that they actually fired as troops most of the time.

Again, I am coming to this from the scenario design perspective, and from the experience in CMMC1 where this was a big problem. I never play QBs, so while I am sympathetic to this problem for QB players, it does not affect me, and I do not want to see, what I perceive as, a historically correct aspect of the simulation removed to fix something that does not affect me.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I never play QBs, so while I am sympathetic to this problem for QB players, it does not affect me, and I do not want to see, what I perceive as, a historically correct aspect of the simulation removed to fix something that does not affect me.

Well, I seldom play scenarios. And how would the inclusion of lower ammo FOs affect your ability as Scenario desginer to make historically correct scenarios? Or in this case, the inclusion of 4 Guns FO.

And, when you are talking about "historically correct". How about, as Redwolf has pointed out, this "correctness" leads to ahistorical arty use?

(the allied very limited 1500 pts battle or less, while the axis are not)

This is a GAME after all, and while I certainly like, and applaude how BFC strives to make it as historical correct as possible, it cannot shut it eyes to the ahistorical results it generates as a consequence. Or, thats IMO anyway

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Well, I seldom play scenarios. And how would the inclusion of lower ammo FOs affect your ability as Scenario desginer to make historically correct scenarios? Or in this case, the inclusion of 4 Guns FO.

Sigh. I guess I have to repeat myself, but never mind. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE INCLUSION OF A 4 GUN FOO FOR THE 25-PDR.

I hope that is clearer now. You could also have taken a clue from my earlier post where I say that adding a 4-gun FOO would be the ideal solution.

I do have a problem with the removal of the 8-gun FOO and its replacement with a 4-gun FOO, unless someone can show historical evidence that standard USE, i.e. not number of FOOs in Forty's book, was by troop, and not by battery.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Andreas:

That's good to read But, has ANYBODY made such a suggestion? All I've read is about the INCLUSION about other FO's, not removal of older ones. And since no one (as I have seen) have made such a suggestion, I cant understand why you posted about it in the first place and thought you were talking about the inclusion of other FOs as "ahistorical".

[ January 30, 2004, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Abteilung]

AFAIK, 25pdrs had an ammo trailer which held up to 36 rounds for each tube. I have a pics somewhere around here of the whole kit n kaboodle, if need be I'll dig them up.

Don't know much about Axis arty wrt standard loadouts for each tube.

[flamingknives]

I like Forty, he makes me sound knowledgeable.

He also states that first line ammo (in limber and quad) is in the region of 144 rounds/gun.

[Abteilung]

144 rounds? Where was it stored when their ammo trailers only held 36? The crew must've had ammo falling out of their ears, with the poor puller pigeon toed and sagging pot-bellied from the load.

[flamingknives]

In the Quad. Jeez, I wonder why I bother writing it down.

[Redwolf]

I have a question for the people who think that no realism concerns apply to Quickbattle players?

What do you think we are discussing here and why would be bother? Why do you think we are concerned about the "combined arms" setting if you think we would all battle in "unrestricted" all day?

As I said in another posting, apart from the Quickbattle players who don't care about realism, a Quickbattle is a tool - to quote from my previous posting:

Contrary to common believe, many Quickbattle players, while they don't recreate one particular historic event, do care a lot about realism and realistic OOBs. It is more of a military exercise for a new situation than an analysis of an old situation. Most people I play don't cherry-pick individual units, they pick one of many imagined OOBs with some imagined reinforcements from higher HQ.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

But, has ANYBODY made such a suggestion?

I interpreted YD's post to be such a suggestion. That is why I responded to it, quoting it. If YD meant something else, then it is not a problem.

Personally, I would like to see 24-gun and 72-gun FOOs, to be able to properly simulate MIKE and UNCLE targets. The more the merrier.

Mike, I notice that quoting Forty makes you happy. What does he have to say about the tactical use of the troop. Where was the second FOO team attached to? Could it have been that the troop was merely an administrative unit, with the second FOO team in the battery alternating in the job with the first, i.e. both are attached to the battalion HQ they support, with one of them being off the frontline at any one time? Did troops have their own fire control?

[YankeeDog]

Just to be clear, quoting my previous post:

I actually think the problem would be 90% fixed with the addition of just two additional spotters:

[emphasis added]

So, yes, I was talking about adding spotters, not changing the tube or shell counts of the present spotters.

If this is for some reason impossible, then the issue becomes much harder to fix. Perhaps some tweaking of shell loads and the arty budgets for QB types could mitigate it somewhat, but too much monkey business with the spotters already in the game will mess up a lot of scenarios.

I would also note again that the problem is not at all limited to 1000pt. ME QBs. It shows up in Attack/Defense QBs as well. It gets worse the smaller the point size of the QB, but American 105mm arty isn't purchasable *at all* until you reach the 1500pt. level, and even then there are considerable limitations on purchasing 105mm (can't buy in MEs, also for a Combined Arms or Infantry Attack/Defense with a 1500pt. force, you can only afford Green).

To have the US Army's primary Regimental AND Divisional caliber this limited seems silly to me, especially when German Arty TOEs are depicted in MUCH greater detail on the QB purchase tables, and also allow significantly greater choice in small to mid-size battles. The problems isn't as bad for the CW 25pdrs and other arty, it is still dramatically less available than German Arty at lower point levels.

Again, I am NOT advocating the modification of any spotters already in the game. All I am suggesting is the addition of a few (2-3) spotters on the US and Brit tables, primarily for purposes of balancing QBs. These additions would also have the nice side effect of filling out US Arty TOEs - for example, for the US, Divisional 105mm spotters, as well as Armored Infantry Battalion 81mm and 75mm spotters (representing 81mm HT & M8 HMC platoons firing indirect) are presently entirely missing.

Cheers,

YD

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Personally, I would like to see 24-gun and 72-gun FOOs, to be able to properly simulate MIKE and UNCLE targets. The more the merrier.

The sheer horror of being on the recieving end of that would make me stop playing Axis ever.

Mike, I notice that quoting Forty makes you happy. What does he have to say about the tactical use of the troop. Where was the second FOO team attached to? Could it have been that the troop was merely an administrative unit, with the second FOO team in the battery alternating in the job with the first, i.e. both are attached to the battalion HQ they support, with one of them being off the frontline at any one time? Did troops have their own fire control?

There's a diagram of tactical deployment of a Field Arty regiment which indicates the presence of a FOO supplied from each troop, in addtion to a rear OP and a liason officer in the Battalion HQ. There isn't any reference to how the units fired in action.

[Abteilung]

Tank Combat in North Africa (TCNA as I like to call it) details very efficient use of arty by the British. Jentz mentions the effective use of three armored cars to spot, and also mentions being able to bombard moving columns.

While Jentz acknowledges those bombardments often did little to no damage, they forced tanks to button and other awareness-reducing measures to be taken in order to avoid shelling.