Good Form Artillery Barrages

[Bon]

A question of etiquette: what sort of opening barrages are considered gamey by the community, generally?

I'm a little startled by the cheap power of the Sherman Calliope rocket- if I buy four of them and deploy them against an AI opponent at the beginning of a game, I totally slay them and they rarely recover. Of course, I wouldn't begin a game against a human opponent with a barrage like that- it feels instinctively gamey. But some sort of barrage against a presumptive enemy position seems totally appropriate. So what's over the line? Is there a consensus on this?

And, incidentally, why are the rockets so damn cheap, in both points and rarity? Were they really EVERYWHERE in Normandy and the Cotentin Peninsula? And were they that devastating?

[Vanir Ausf B]

The rarity modifier for US rockets is actually pretty big. But the base price is so low to begin with they remain affordable (rarity is just the base price times some number). Nobody knows why they are so cheap ( or rather: nobody who knows is talking ), but the prices may be changed in the next patch. Until then it is best to ban their use completely. We have also been told that the Calliope rockets will be removed from the game in the first patch, but will return in a later module.

As for opening prep. barrages, the consensus is that they should be disallowed for Meeting Engagements, and probably for the defender in Attack/Defend QBs. Some people feel they are ok for the attacker. My personal view is that artillery in general is so powerful in this game that for game balance purposes it's best to ban opening prep. fire entirely. If you want to use your artillery like that then you should at least have to buy some TRPs, IMO.

[Michael Emrys]

Nobody knows why they are so cheap...

One factor may be that compared to conventional tube artillery they and their launchers were dirt cheap to manufacture. That and the fact that they can deliver massive amounts of ordnance in a short, intense period of time made them popular with armies. They also had their limitations, such as inability to hit point targets with consistent accuracy. But if you needed to saturate, say, a ten acre area in a minute or two, they were definitely the way to go.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think the OP was asking about the price we pay for them in the QB purchase screen, not the price the US government paid for them in 1944

[Michael Emrys]

I think the OP was asking about the price we pay for them in the QB purchase screen, not the price the US government paid for them in 1944

Yeah, which is why I posted that it was one factor, not the whole explanation. I know that battlefield effectiveness is probably a bigger factor in determining the in-game cost, but didn't feel the need to mention it.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Battlefield effectiveness is the only factor. And rarity, if that option is used.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

etiquette wise, 0 min artillery only if my opponent agrees specifically or if it´s sprecifically mentioned in the briefing.

[dieseltaylor]

Not a problem on the 16 sq km map though is it?

[Vanir Ausf B]

There is a 16 sq km map? It is true that the small CMx2 maps take a lot of the guesswork out of artillery placement.

[YankeeDog]

There is a 16 sq km map? It is true that the small CMx2 maps take a lot of the guesswork out of artillery placement.

4km is the largest a CMBN map can be on either axis, so 4km x 4km is the largest map you could make. That said, I haven't checked to see whether any of the maps included with the game are actually this large, and I don't think my computer could handle a map this size (my rig is 3.5 years old and hardly a speed demon, so those with newer, fancier stuff might be OK).

This does point up one of the trickier aspects of QB pricing, which is that some unit can be battle winners on certain maps, but substantially less powerful on others. Even with a pricing adjustment, I suspect a "no rocket artillery" agreement will continue to be a good idea on medium to smaller maps.

[7thGalaxy]

I don't see pre battle barrages as being gamey - after all, afaik they were used in WW2, because they were effective at softening up the enemy. I guess they would be more gamey in a meeting battle, where they could easily be deployed on the enemies likely starting point. But in attack-defend type battles they should be considered a valid tactic.

After all, there are counters, like not putting your men in the obvious places, spreading out your squads and positioning them in good cover, or leaving a sentry or two in the positions you want to defend, and keeping your men out of the way of the initial barrage, before rushing them back to the lines, which I believe was used to counter this sort of thing IRL.

[Vanir Ausf B]

4km is the largest a CMBN map can be on either axis, so 4km x 4km is the largest map you could make. That said, I haven't checked to see whether any of the maps included with the game are actually this large, and I don't think my computer could handle a map this size (my rig is 3.5 years old and hardly a speed demon, so those with newer, fancier stuff might be OK).

This does point up one of the trickier aspects of QB pricing, which is that some unit can be battle winners on certain maps, but substantially less powerful on others. Even with a pricing adjustment, I suspect a "no rocket artillery" agreement will continue to be a good idea on medium to smaller maps.

The largest QB maps included in the game are around 2x2 km, but most of these have very open terrain. There are some a little smaller that are more tactically complex. I don't find maps smaller than 1x1 km interesting, but I also prefer Bn sized games.

I wish someone would convert the Huzzar and Monthardrou scenario maps to QB maps, if that is possible. There is a QB map based on Huzzar but it is a small stripped-down version. I may do it myself if it isn't too hard.

[c3k]

I agree that 0 minute bombardments on the likely start position is a bit distasteful. This is especially true of QB meeting engagements, but it also holds for other battles.

[dieseltaylor]

I did it in a scenario but then I was defending and had someone spotting - actually on reflection I am not so sure! Can you stop and shift 0 time bombardment?

[zmoney]

I think it would be gamey if the defender arty the attackers set up zone because its generally confined to a small area. Other than that bombs away.

[Magpie_Oz]

I dunno, dropping arty on likely form up points is pretty much standard procedure IRL

[7thGalaxy]

If it's done IRL then it can't really be gamey. I guess what people are talking about here is whether it's unbalancing, and if that is the case, then arty might be too cheap points-wise.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, but IRL you don't usually know the exact boundaries of the enemy's staging area.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yeah, but IRL you don't usually know the exact boundaries of the enemy's staging area.

true but you can generally have a pretty good educated guess

[YankeeDog]

The problem is that, especially on smaller maps, it's often much easier to make an educated guess as to where the "likely form up points" are in the game than it would be IRL.

In the case of a defense, a defender also wouldn't necessarily know exactly when an attack was coming -- a defending commander might have a pretty good idea that an attack was coming within the next few hours, but the nature of CM QBs means you know the jump-off time of the attack, down to the minute. This makes turn 0 spoiling barrages unrealistically effective on many CM maps; it's been this way since CMBO.

In the case of an attacker, you *know* the enemy's MLR is somewhere within the limits of the map. Attacking commanders often didn't have such detailed intel IRL. In QBs, the defender also can't avail himself of certain common tactics to reduce the effects of prep barrages, such as leaving a good reserve a km or so behind the MLR, and bringing them up to prepared positions once the barrage lifts (this is technically possible in CM, but many maps lack sufficient size to allow this kind of tactic.)

The game also doesn't currently support important sheltering techniques like putting your defenders in deep, covered (non-fighting position) dugouts, or in the basements of buildings.

[Magpie_Oz]

If it's done IRL then it can't really be gamey. I guess what people are talking about here is whether it's unbalancing, and if that is the case, then arty might be too cheap points-wise.

I guess so but there are too many variables to be able to come up with a points system that guarantees balance. I for one like Qb's for that very reason they are unpredictable rather than a finely tuned balanced situation

[Agua]

Pre-planned into setup zones should be verboten. If you want to set it up delayed for some likely line of resistance, that seems fair game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And the setup zones on some maps are very small. That's the real killer. If the enemy knows the exact boundaries of your staging area but that area is km^2 that's a big difference than if it is 100m/side.

EDIT: HA, like 4 people posted while I was typing

[dieseltaylor]

Once you get beyond the single finger typing Vanir ....

It might be down to two!

[c3k]

2 exceptions, both based on the attacker firing on the defender.

If the defender has been given a very large swathe of territory in which to set up, then the attacker should not be castigated for trying to determine the likely strongpoints and bombarding them.

Likewise, if the scenario is one which states that the attacker has already found the MLR and has previously located enemy strongpoints, then that intel represents hard-won information. In that case, too, the attacker should not be subject to approbation for a 0 turn bombardment.

(And an appendix: if the designer is creating an historical situation in which the 0 turn bombardment represented the start of the battle, then that'd be okay.)

I think that's it.