Help against Artillery

[GerryCMBB]

Hello All:

I do not want to hijack the "Bone" thread so I am reposting here. Here is what I asked:

"What I would like to know is if the modules will showcase artillery so much. I know it was important in Normandy. Was it the same elsewhere in the western front, all you well-read gentlemen?"

It seems to me that artillery does most of the killing and in a way that takes some fun out of the game for me. I realize that I could play a different game but there are many things in CMBN to like. So in the interest of enjoying it more, maybe some experienced players can help me combat artillery. So far I have been murdered in bocage country and hammered in houses. I have to put my units somewhere and it must make tactical sense. Spreading out is important. FH and trenches too I guess? Anything else.

When those big guns go on a tear they bring down the houses literally. (This is interesting of course after seeing the discussion about houses being magnets.)

Gerry

[JonS]

This isn't really a game issue, since it's entirely in the hands of scen designers, or you yourself when playing QBs.

[sburke]

Hello All:

I do not want to hijack the "Bone" thread so I am reposting here. Here is what I asked:

"What I would like to know is if the modules will showcase artillery so much. I know it was important in Normandy. Was it the same elsewhere in the western front, all you well-read gentlemen?"

It seems to me that artillery does most of the killing and in a way that takes some fun out of the game for me. I realize that I could play a different game but there are many things in CMBN to like. So in the interest of enjoying it more, maybe some experienced players can help me combat artillery. So far I have been murdered in bocage country and hammered in houses. I have to put my units somewhere and it must make tactical sense. Spreading out is important. FH and trenches too I guess? Anything else.

When those big guns go on a tear they bring down the houses literally. (This is interesting of course after seeing the discussion about houses being magnets.)

Gerry

Unfortunately short of playing scenarios without them I don't think there is any easy answer. Am in a PBEM right now of Die Ammis Kommen and for almost the entire 1st 30 minutes it seemed there was always something falling. My opponent probably felt to some degree the same about mine. Unfortunately I am attacking and he knows pretty well where. I have tried a few things like displacing when on defense whenever I had to reveal a unit, but once the stuff starts raining down, if you are under it, you are in for it.

Spreading out is probably the single most important thing, it takes a lot more artillery to degrade your force if they are not bunched up.

[GreenAsJade]

The answer to the question is "keep moving".

As the defender in Bocage, "layered defense" really takes it's full meaning.

You have to have units ready behind Bocage to spot and shoot at the enemy as they probe, then run away before the fire hits.

The same is actually the case in towns too (see the threads about whether houses really provide cover).

Your plan has to include a means to subsequently kill the enemy after they move into the position that you ran away from. They face the same problem you do, except worse because in order to attack and win they have to arrive in a certain spot, so you have a guaranteed target zone, if you time it right.

I recently heard here in the forum and took successfully to heart some wisdom that works well for me: remember that HE kills, not small arms fire. The only purpose for having infantry is to find the enemy, so you can deliver HE on them, then mop up after.

So you don't have to avoid scenarios with artillery: actually, doing that would be "gamey", since artillery was a major factor in real life.

Damn, my oppos read this forum, what am I doing?!

GaJ

[sburke]

I recently heard here in the forum and took successfully to heart some wisdom that works well for me: remember that HE kills, not small arms fire. The only purpose for having infantry is to find the enemy, so you can deliver HE on them, then mop up after.

So you don't have to avoid scenarios with artillery: actually, doing that would be "gamey", since artillery was a major factor in real life.

Damn, my oppos read this forum, what am I doing?!

GaJ

Was that the origin of the NRA slogan - "Guns don't kill people, artillery kills people"?

[GreenAsJade]

LOL - that'd be right

[GreenAsJade]

BTW, this is relevant to the pioint I was making in another thread about realism.

It's amazing how we all thought that CMx1 was realistic, yet we conducted pitched infantry battles with comparatively minor artillery influence. People expect that to still work, and say "artillery is too powerful now". But I've become less convinced of this... I think there's every possibiluty that CMBN is right and CMx1 was ... wrong! (And of course usually the truth lies in between )

GaJ

(Wodin ^^^^^^^)

[Vanir Ausf B]

It would be nice if we had a Combined Arms force option for QBs -- a la CMx1 -- that would limit how many points could be spent on artillery. As it stands, my recommendation is to play on large maps.

[GreenAsJade]

You're right: you need space. I played one game on a tiny map and it was a ridiculous bomb-fest. It just shows that real battlefields don't have tiny walls.

GaJ

[Tarquelne]

Do you play many QBs? When setting up QBs I think it's a good idea to talk about limits on arty, TRPs and pre-planned missions. Ideally waiting until after the map and battle type are chosen. I've found it quite easy accidentally create QBs overly-dominated by arty.

The smaller the map the less arty should be allowed for either player, and the smaller a player's area the less arty their opponent should get. I'd say the attacker should generally be allowed more arty, especially in Assaults.

OTOH, you could also be extra-generous on the time allowed in Attacks and Assaults, but ban or limit the arty.

My very first QB involved a Small map with American rockets and not one but two P-51s: Way too much.

I'm in a couple of QBs now where we limited it to 81 and 60mm mortars. Largish MEs: Arty's still deadly, but getting it on-target is far from a trivial exercise. I think it's working nicely.

In another pair of Assault games I'm wondering if we shouldn't have limited the arty. Now that I'm seeing it fall I'm wondering if the Defender's area is too small. Oh well, we'll see how it works out...

[GreenAsJade]

Yeah - this is an interesting concept, actually: that there should only be so much arty-per-battlefield-area.

GaJ

[Squatdog]

I recall there was an artillery limit in CMx1(at least in Berlin to Barbarossa).

It's not helped by the fact that mortars in particular are overpowered at the moment in terms of accuracy and ROF, especially the light mortars.

In the last match I played as US, a single light mortar completely annihilated a rifle section in the space of 2 turns by firing over open sights from 300m away. I thought "hmmmm this should pin them down long enough for me to manoeuvre into..." *KA-BANG! KA-BANG! KA-BANG! KA-BANG!*

No more rifle section.

[siffo998]

i think the problem with the huge artillery efficiency ingame is due to the fact that infantry cannot entrech themself properly:

infantry in ww2 carried spades to quickly build a rudimentary entrenchment. in cmbn you can only place static trench systems etc.

i think it would be nice if ingame infantry which stays at the same place for some time (for example 5 minutes) will get a entrenchment bonus (maybe with a nice animation) from artillery shrapnells etc. of course it should not have the same effect as a the foxholes and trenches we see now but at least it would severely reduce artillery casualties. and of course it would increase the realism. Also it should be restricted to non exhausted (tired) troops.

[G. Smiley]

I think part of the problem is maps that are too small, giving limited amounts of strategic options both for defender and attacker, and thus concentrating too much artillery at the given advance paths/defensive positions.

[Erwin]

I think you got it right. The larger CM1 maps enabled much larger scenarios that allowed for a lot more maneuver. Most CMBN scenarios are small by comparison and feel like straight up assaults where you cannot do much flanking. Arty is a lot more deadly in that situation.

[G. Smiley]

I think you got it right. The larger CM1 maps enabled much larger scenarios that allowed for a lot more maneuver. Most CMBN scenarios are small by comparison and feel like straight up assaults where you cannot do much flanking. Arty is a lot more deadly in that situation.

Well, can we really blame the game? Isn't it more scenario design issue?

I think most scenarios would benefit from less unit density and more room for manoeuver.

[Erwin]

The problem is (if you read some other threads) is that becasue CMBN is such a resource hog compared to CM1, anything larger than what would be a medium sized map and scenario in CM1 gives most players' machines problems. (See "Fire brigade" and "Omaha Beach".)

CMBN seems designed to depict smaller scale engagements than CM1. And it is a lot better at depicting urban warfare. However, many of us miss the largescale armor and maneuver-dominated engagements of CM1 so it's certain that CM1 will be with us for a loooong time.

[Sgt Schultz]

For a QB, I would suggest medium force on large maps. Also, agree to limit on-map mortars and TRPs.

If both sides are fielding just one or two off-map 81/105 batteries, then things are not so crazy.

---

[Squatdog]

I think you got it right. The larger CM1 maps enabled much larger scenarios that allowed for a lot more maneuver. Most CMBN scenarios are small by comparison and feel like straight up assaults where you cannot do much flanking. Arty is a lot more deadly in that situation.

I still play CMx1 occasionally and the mortars weren't nearly as lethal as they are in CMBN.

In CMBB, three 50mm mortars grouped together would by enough to suppress a trenchline or pin and inflict some casualties on infantry in the open, but in CMBN a single 60mm mortar can break dug in infantry and completely annihilate them in the open.

[DavidFields]

BTW, this is relevant to the pioint I was making in another thread about realism.

It's amazing how we all thought that CMx1 was realistic, yet we conducted pitched infantry battles with comparatively minor artillery influence. People expect that to still work, and say "artillery is too powerful now". But I've become less convinced of this... I think there's every possibiluty that CMBN is right and CMx1 was ... wrong! (And of course usually the truth lies in between )

GaJ

(Wodin ^^^^^^^)

I think there are two issues:

1. Is CM1 or CM2 more realistic with regard to mortars? I don't know. I do believe that CM1 was more like those games that preceeded it: CC, ASL, Squad Leader, Panzer Leader, etc. Perhaps there was an "original error" which goes back to the 60s. Perhaps CMSF/Modern Warfare has affected the thinking--though I have been told many, many times on this board that is not the case. Evidently, 70 years ago, one could put a round in a pickle jar from...some large distance, as we can do now, I have read on these boards

Under realism, there is also the issue of direct fire mortars, which I have never done, but appears to be the tactic of choice these days--realistic, usual practice in WW2?

2. What design decisions does one make to increase the fun/playability of a simulation? CM does not have us pillaging houses for food. Scenarios with Carpet Bombing would likely not be fun for the defender. And some of the recon, though this seems to be varying these days, is assumed to have been done. For the Germans, the horse transports are out of the way. The issue here is this: are mortars too deadly/accurate with regard to this issue?--given the other design issues, such as how foxholes and terrain coverage is currently handled.

I am willing to give Battlefront grace on these issues--hence my sig. There is no doubt in my mind that they care about both. Yet I struggle...with the effect of the mortars. I will be interested in what happens with the Commonwealth Module.

[Squatdog]

CMx1 was more realistic with regard to mortars at least.

The German forces actually dropped having a 50mm mortar at platoon level because the weight of fire it produced was inadequate compared to the effort of having to hump it around.

[sburke]

Was that a range issue or firepower? As far as I understand it the range of the German 50 mm was pretty short (568 yards compared to the US 60 mms 1,935 yards).

[RockinHarry]

Without going over all of the topic again, I say there´s a particular imbalance with artillery and protection against it. While it is realistic that artillery is the infantry mens worst enemy, particularly vs. moving and in the open (trees & treebursts are equally deadly), the game lacks some protection measures that entrenched infantry would have many times in the normandy theatre. It were cellars, trenches & foxholes spiced up with small dug outs (2 log layers and some earth vs. mortar and splinters) and true squad bunkers, that are not well presented by the shelter type stuff in the game.

Anything else is on behalf of the scenario maker, ascertaining that either maps are large enough in proportion to force sizes, or with a particular view to an initial battle situation. Were bombardements already done, prior to the assault? Are forces already that close to each other (map size), that an attacker, as well as defender could not properly use their artillery without endangering own forces and thus need to depend on given heavy support arms (mortars, HMGs, tanks) ..and such.

Also worth of considering would be likely counter battery measures. Games like Steel Panthers WaW have something like that modelled.

[StellarRat]

Unless you have time create entrenchments with overhead cover there really isnt a lot you can do to defend against artillery. The best bet is to disperse and keep moving so they don't zero in on you. Even that is difficult because a smart commander will quickly ID approach routes and likely strong/hiding points quickly. Its a very effective weapon. Modern artillery can even take out tanks. The best defense is probably a good counterbattery program, but we don't do that in CM.

[womble]

CMx1 was more realistic with regard to mortars at least.

The German forces actually dropped having a 50mm mortar at platoon level because the weight of fire it produced was inadequate compared to the effort of having to hump it around.

The German 2" mortar really was a hunk o' junk compared to the US 60mm, I gather. The M2 shell was 50% heavier and it had 4 times the range of the Granatewerfer 36 (which they stopped making in '41, whereas the M2 served into Vietnam with US forces).