Efficiency Loss Artillery

[Asap]

This change has pushed me away from OoB for quite some time. I still don't like it, it's the worst change in the game, in my opinion. The artillery was the most deadly weapon on the battlefield and since we have efficiency loss thru firing, the artillery units hardly ever fight with 100% of their destruction force. I guess, that this change weakened all artillery units for at least 30%, which is a lot! There is no efficiency loss for fighters or bombers when they attack, why?
I would be really happy about an option, to play the game without this efficiency loss for artillery.

[Mojko]

Efficiency loss on artillery was an absolutely necessary thing to have as the heavy artillery was completely overpowered. The ability to lower enemy efficiency without lowering own efficiency is the most powerful ability in the game. Additionally artillery units do not have to deal with counterattacks from enemy when attacking. Even now, it remains one of the most cost-efficient way how to play. If you would watch any of my replays you would see 6 heavy artillery units shelling the enemies to kingdom come and lot of meat shield units like cheap infantry in the front taking the beating instead of tanks.

Bombers have to attack a unit at very close range and their damage is very limited to most of the units, so I don't think that they need to suffer efficiency loss. Same for fighters.

I do agree that there are some artillery units which should not suffer from efficiency loss, for example light and medium artillery. I propose the following solution:

- introduce a "Heavy artillery" trait
- all artillery units with this trait will suffer the efficiency loss when attacking
- this trait will be added only to artillery units like 17 K18, 21 Mrs and so on
- artillery units without this trait will not suffer efficiency loss when attacking

This way, we can keep it balanced. What do you think?

[kondi754]

To tell the truth, the game is too easy now in my opinion, so I don't think it makes sense to simplify it any more
Think rather, please, how to make it difficult.

[Asap]

Most losses during WW1 and WW2 were caused by artillery, if I remember well. I have never had any problem with heavy artillery in OoB, ever. It was powerful, as it should be. Only the little guns are overpowered because they can take out heavy tanks due to efficiency loss.
However, to overcome the extreme weakening of artillery units by the developers, I recommend to only purchase the most powerful guns in OoB and don't buy self-propelled artillery because it costs too many RP points, it's too weak and it has too little attack range, mostly. The German 17cm K18 gun for instance, is the weapon of choice, lots of them.

[Asap]

To tell the truth, the game is too easy now in my opinion, so I don't think it makes sense to simplify it any more
Think rather, please, how to make it difficult.

With the artillery as we knew it from the beginning of this game, it wouldn't be easier because the changes would apply to ALL artillery units and of course I know by now, that OoB is way too easy for you @Kondi754, way too easy. I read it practically every day.

[kondi754]

To tell the truth, the game is too easy now in my opinion, so I don't think it makes sense to simplify it any more
Think rather, please, how to make it difficult.

With the artillery as we knew it from the beginning of this game, it wouldn't be easier because the changes would apply to ALL artillery units and of course I know by now, that OoB is way too easy for you @Kondi754, way too easy. I read it practically every day.

Yes, sure thing
But - thanks to good advices from other forum users - I plan to create a super difficult "Kondi Mod" for all OoB's campaigns and I will not bother you anymore with my complaining about the level of difficulty

[Asap]

Don't worry @Kondi754, you don't bother me. A new, very special difficulty level would be great.

[kondi754]

Don't worry @Kondi754, you don't bother me. A new, very special difficulty level would be great.

Glad to hear that

[Admiral_Horthy]

At first i thought the same... what the hell and why the hell we need this. I got used to it. Well it can be changed to be more realistic but it will be complicated...

What lowers the efficiency of artillery? In real life, supply the first place. No ammo, no shooting. The second, artillery needs target info for indirect fire. Third, preparations. Artillery both mobile and non mobile needs well prepared firing positions to operate. Mobile arty takes little advantage of prepared position as their main feature is exactly the opposite, mobility. That's why (by WW2 terms) they never be as effective as dug-in and well prepared field arty.

In contrast... a gun battery towed into a position quickly won't have fire coordination, ammo supply, protection, camouflage and C3 features. The desired "rain of fire" salvo can only be achieved by well dug-in arty, with piled up ammo stores, communication lines established (with other units and gun/batteries with each other), protected and camouflaged positions, measures for counter battery fire pro and contra, etc etc. The more heavy the artillery the more need for such prepping. A small inf-gun used for direct fire or short range support is indeed different from barrage firing divisional, corps or army level artillery units.

In game terms that could be simulated by decreasing the efficiency of artillery's after repositioning (movement) or when losing entrenchment level (aka being attacked, harassed, distrupted etc), not after attacking. Also it would be a smart thing that each artillery attack would cost extra supply (the heavier the more) straining the supply chain.

[kondi754]

Generally speaking, artillery should deal much less real damage to units (O - well-entrenched or hidden, 1 - in the open), but rather "supressed" them. The quality of the "supressed" factor should depend on the type of artillery, its entrenchment(time) and available RPs as well as the type of enemy unit it attacks. Am I right?

[Admiral_Horthy]

Don't get me wrong... I don't have problem with artillery damage! I would stop playing OOB at the moment heavy arty stops causing damage... 0 or 1. No way. Then there would be complaints about efficiency loss.. which is also just fine to me.*

What I said is an alternative to "efficiency loss after attack".

The problem is, that people over-buy heavy arty** especially so rare pieces like german K18 or even morser 18, produced only 300 pieces, while no one uses light artillery. For example soviet ZiS-3 from which more than 100.000 pieces were produced in three years. And that was just one out of the 76mm pieces. Also in case of small nations, certain types would be represented by a single unit for the entire country for the entire war!!!
Never the less, the german K18 among other would almost certainly deserves the trait SlowRepair... in case of Germany, I'd turn all heavy arty to slowRepair. Rarities it they need to be cores can be given like one time auxiliaries or special rewards.

*Start using light arty. it does 0-1 damage and makes suppression. however, that's really an issue that they use up the same CPs like heavy art.

** Because light arty is just substitute... or auxiliary. Players never buy them unless they have AT switch. Most of them having range too long. As I brought up the case with the "Artillery range" or the "StuG" topics. They should be supporting infantry defense as a switchable trait. With that they'd make up for the CP cost and become more popular - one step closer to realism

[kondi754]

I am deeply interested in the history of World War II (immodestly say that I think I have almost specialist knowledge on many subjects) and I agree generally with what you write, but not with everything.
Let me present my point of view in the points:
1. I read a lot about the use of artillery in the Second World War and its consequences and I can say that the caliber of cannons didn't matter when it comes to direct damage done by the artillery unit if the opponent was prepared- whether it was heavy or light arty losses in infantry or equipment were small (probably a bit larger in the equipment), most often enemy left the first or even the second line of defense, and after the end of the artillery fire opponent's infantry returned and waited for attack; so the only real difference was range or "suppression quality" (how long it took the opponent to return to the first line and take an effective defense)
2. I think that the role of artillery in repelling armored attacks by direct fire is ignored or neglected - two examples: German counterattack at Balaton Lake in March 1945 was repulsed thanks to the use of field artillery to conduct direct fire to the German tanks, similarly to Arras in May 1940, where the participation of the famous "FlaKs" was exaggerated(overestimated) and the counterattack of British tanks Mathilda was repulsed rather thanks the direct fire of field artillery.
The opponent's tanks were destroyed or immobilized in such cases, of course not by puncturing the armor, but, for example, breaking the track, falling into after-the-explosion craters or self-ignition of the engine from a near explosion of explosive charge or fragments.
More and more historians are inclined to the hypothesis that the Wittman tank was destroyed as a result of just such an explosion of the engine caused by the bursting of the artillery projectile over the Tiger engine

[Admiral_Horthy]

Actually, if you have been in a tank, on the move, imagine that awful shaking... now imagine what an explosion can do to you which can flip your tank over. It does not need to penetrate armor... crew injuries and death can occur from many things. A 152mm shell of a D-20 howitzer makes a crater 2 meters deep.
Partly agree with your 1st point, as long as it is bombardment which is not controlled (say, using the bombard trait). If the fire is observed (spotted) than the fire can be controlled, shifted, rolled forward. Even in WW2 that was possible especially for nations equipped well with radios. Soviets used sheer numbers when bombarding, but still they were accurate especially with mortars. Gemans often evaded fire preparations, usually due to high skills, intelligence info and the lack of observers from the other side. As far as I know these happened mostly on the eastern front.
2nd point... yes. thats what I meant. Also, for US troops every german tank was a Tiger and every AT gun an 88 Flak. Also neglected are italian guns in this case. Good point is the soviet defense in Hungary with 85mm AA guns. I just made the unit AT switchable yesterday We already have the leFH18M variant having AT mode. Generally I gave modest ratings, rather low AT values, but still makes a difference. In return these field guns are vulnerable having poor defense values compared to real ATGs and of course cannot be concealed (by trait). They meant to be improvised defences as last resort.

[Mojko]

Let's keep the discussion game balance focused, please. There was a very good point raised about light arty not being used very often as it's not very efficient when it comes CP. I don't think balancing around CP is very good because CP has to be an integer value, no decimals are allowed. This gives little balancing space in this area. Instead, I think we should look in different areas - the unit abilities.

Some people suggested that they would like to see close fire support ability on artillery units in a similar fashion as in PzK. I'm definitely against adding this ability on all artillery units, however I would be fine with introducing a new trait "close fire support". which would do the same. This trait would than be attached to light artillery units and also we might consider adding this to some assault guns. This way we can keep it nice and balanced as we can decide which units will get the new trait.

What do you think?

[Admiral_Horthy]

that's what I meant. Definitely a direct fire trait related to adjacent units, not a ranged one. Not all units, but those capable of direct fire - Infantry guns, Field guns (that would mean, in AT mode not in ranged mode) and most importantly StuG and perhaps infantry-tanks with short barreled low velocity HE firing guns?

Another idea... AT defensive fire increases return damage. What if this close support would work like artillery fire causing more efficiency loss and less damage.. but most importantly BEFORE attack. It wouldn't increase return damage but would decrease incoming damage by suppressing the attackers.

Sample unit... let's see an old field gun like the Mle1897. Arty mode, range 4. Clear. AT mode, defensive fire on tanks (little better than 37/47mm guns, but non-concealable and weaker), support fire on infantry. Similarly to AA gun fire when it fires defensive the effect is weaker than when it attacks during it's own turn. In direct fire mode,of course attacking should be risky, as per "defensive" trait

Question, how should Heavy infantry be handled? What if we have them stay in Mortar mode to provide support?

[kondi754]

Yes, very interesting ideas.
Light arty, early StuGs, Hv Inf in mortar mode but also i.e. M10 US tank destroyers, Soviet's SU-76s and maybe Nebelwerfers/Wuhrammens should have "close fire support" trait
All this equipment work closely with infantry. US Army even changed its regulations for the use of self-propelled tank destroyers at 1943/44, putting more emphasis on artillery support of its own infantry.
In short, M10, M18 and later M36 were to stick to their own lines, leaving the Shermans to deep armored raids in the enemy's operational space.
Earlier, until 1943, US tank destroyers were intended to support their own tanks in the fight against German tanks and tank destroyers.