German Arty doesn't provide direct support against a tank attack?

[panzeh]

Ammo is re-supply at the beginning of each turn unless you are encircled or something so thats not a valid point

So, you do realize that artillery uses up ammo each time it shoots in support fire, right? So, since guns have limited ammunition, you can run it out on terrible support shots and then move in for the attacks you want. Yes, it'll have ammo next turn but that's not the point.

[econ21]

I thought the whole purpose of using the SIG33 Sturmpanzer (Bison) was to mechanize the SIG33 gun so that it could provide direct Arty support to spearheads.

But when I look at the units, I see that only the division heavy bn of 150mm howitzers can assist my front line units against a tank attack and only if adjacent to the defending unit.

why isn't "AT support" a characteristic of direct fire arty such as the SIG33?

am I missing some arcane info?

One thing to remember is that while the SiG33 and the 150mm howitzer both fired 150mm shells, their guns were very different. The former had an infantry gun that was relatively short range (5000m); the other a long barrel with three times greater range (1500m)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33
I don't know how that translates into anti-armor capability, but they would play very different roles in the battlefield. I would imagine that in a pinch, one might call in the long range heavy artillery in a defensive for suppressing an assault, whereas the infantry gun is more for backing up infantry assaults.

As an aside, the Bison was a quirky thing - only 38 were produced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG ... n_I_Ausf_B
In PzC1 it is arguably a little too good for the early war in its 3 hex range. The long range 150mm mobile German artillery came later with the Hummel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummel_(vehicle)
I haven't got PzC2 yet, so don't know if the Hummel has AT ability. If you were talking about the Hummel rather than Bison, I might agree with you.

For what it is worth, I recall reading that artillery was more effective against armour that commonly realised, although that may be just for modern artillery. US Cold War doctrine was that artillery bombardment did little to tanks. But then when the Cold War ended, they tested this by firing a barrage against some ex-Warsaw Pact tanks in a practice exercise. The bombardment had quick a devastating effect, destroying many tanks and the experiment led to a new appreciation of its potential role.

[panzeh]

The hummel provides support against both hard and soft targets, much like its towed cousin.

[George_Parr]

Ammo is re-supply at the beginning of each turn unless you are encircled or something so thats not a valid point

So, you do realize that artillery uses up ammo each time it shoots in support fire, right? So, since guns have limited ammunition, you can run it out on terrible support shots and then move in for the attacks you want. Yes, it'll have ammo next turn but that's not the point.

Not only that, but there is also another issue as well: it would give artillery a rather unhealthy amount of shots per round. Yes, they already could fire multiple times per round in PC when supporting a unit, but this would multiply even further when supporting every unit within its range of fire. Artillery was an important weapon, but it couldn't fire at everything at the same time. With this sort of change, it would fire in multiple directions, over different ranges, supporting every unit in range in what amounts to be "the same time". That would be way beyond what you could realistically expect from artillery. It would make artillery way too powerful, and, as you mention, create the risk of ammo being wasted on irrelevant targets, leaving you with nothing for your own attacks.

[Real_MultiPlayer]

It is entirely the point you are defeating your own argument you say it can fire too many times then say it cant fire in support .. order of operation is always the point in these games

and that doesnt mean it already isnt the case that you can run units ammo down to make a certain attack more effective and safer by not receiving damage from a support arty.. these things can often be the difference between viable or not viable attacks.

This worked 100% fine in panzer general 2 for years and years with out any issue. Its tried tested and proven.

And you are quoting me telling you the units are supplied with ammo at the start of your turn... so its not with out ammo for its own attacks ...

[panzeh]

It is entirely the point you are defeating your own argument you say it can fire too many times then say it cant fire in support .. order of operation is always the point in these games

and that doesnt mean it already isnt the case that you can run units ammo down to make a certain attack more effective and safer by not receiving damage from a support arty.. these things can often be the difference between viable or not viable attacks.

This worked 100% fine in panzer general 2 for years and years with out any issue. Its tried tested and proven.

And you are quoting me telling you the units are supplied with ammo at the start of your turn... so its not with out ammo for its own attacks ...

Why do you think it's a perfect system from PG2? What's the advantage of giving artillery this much power? PG2 is hardly a perfect game.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Slight highjacking:
Which units will be supported? Had a 21cm mortar behind a flakvierling in at-mode that was attacked by a cruiser tank. The artillery did NOT fire in support.

[MickMannock]

Slight highjacking:
Which units will be supported? Had a 21cm mortar behind a flakvierling in at-mode that was attacked by a cruiser tank. The artillery did NOT fire in support.

Against tanks, only AT units support. And since the tank attacked the flakvierling, there's no support (if I understood your description correctly).

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Slight highjacking:
Which units will be supported? Had a 21cm mortar behind a flakvierling in at-mode that was attacked by a cruiser tank. The artillery did NOT fire in support.

Against tanks, only AT units support. And since the tank attacked the flakvierling, there's no support (if I understood your description correctly).

No, 21cm mortar also has at support trait.

[panzeh]

I believe units with AT support cannot support one another.

[MickMannock]

Slight highjacking:
Which units will be supported? Had a 21cm mortar behind a flakvierling in at-mode that was attacked by a cruiser tank. The artillery did NOT fire in support.

Against tanks, only AT units support. And since the tank attacked the flakvierling, there's no support (if I understood your description correctly).

No, 21cm mortar also has at support trait.

Sorry, wasn't aware of that.

But as panzeh says:

I believe units with AT support cannot support one another.

AT units doesn't support eachother.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Great, I hope that this is not WAD.

[Femto]

As far as I checked, those high calibre artilleries (like 17cm, 21cm ones) do not provide support against soft targets though they do against hard ones. The opposite is the case for low calibre artilleries.

15cm calibre artilleries do both.

[panzeh]

Great, I hope that this is not WAD.

I'm fairly confident it is WAD that AT support units do not support one another for some very good gameplay reasons.

[SSLConf_pewp3w]

Great, I hope that this is not WAD.

I'm fairly confident it is WAD that AT support units do not support one another for some very good gameplay reasons.

Yes, but what I meant is, that it should be stated somewhere. Because the AT Support trait does not specify that it does not support some units.

[nexusno2000]

Great, I hope that this is not WAD.

I'm fairly confident it is WAD that AT support units do not support one another for some very good gameplay reasons.

Yes, but what I meant is, that it should be stated somewhere. Because the AT Support trait does not specify that it does not support some units.

At support trait and also at support hero, will not support at class units.

[gunnergoz]

Too bad the game does not support a research tree, where you could research various improvements to mechanical reliability, ammunition, tactics, production finish, mobility enhancements, etc. I know that many of the upgraded tanks incorporate improved features created by research, but it would be cool to have to prioritize advancements that could pay off in battlefield performance in different ways, apart from just upgraded vehicles. For instance, like the example the OP refers to, one line of research might make arty units able to support under different circumstances and at different ranges.

[MickMannock]

Too bad the game does not support a research tree, where you could research various improvements to mechanical reliability, ammunition, tactics, production finish, mobility enhancements, etc. I know that many of the upgraded tanks incorporate improved features created by research, but it would be cool to have to prioritize advancements that could pay off in battlefield performance in different ways, apart from just upgraded vehicles. For instance, like the example the OP refers to, one line of research might make arty units able to support under different circumstances and at different ranges.

I get what you're saying but this game is not that type of game you're looking for. This is a beer and pretzel strategy game and adding too much complexity to it would move away from it's niche and quite honestly be a diservice to the game itself.

[Owi]

Players who not read statistics on units do not understand a big concept of this game.
Heros, medals can giv traits. Prototypes and all the different unit. Noone can tell me that he knows all statistics of +1000 units Panzer corp have.
Even you see a tiger - you dont know how much xp it has .. does it have a trait or hero .. you have to check! Thats part of the game.

So questions like this is lack of playing the game proper.

[gunnergoz]

Too bad the game does not support a research tree, where you could research various improvements to mechanical reliability, ammunition, tactics, production finish, mobility enhancements, etc. I know that many of the upgraded tanks incorporate improved features created by research, but it would be cool to have to prioritize advancements that could pay off in battlefield performance in different ways, apart from just upgraded vehicles. For instance, like the example the OP refers to, one line of research might make arty units able to support under different circumstances and at different ranges.

I get what you're saying but this game is not that type of game you're looking for. This is a beer and pretzel strategy game and adding too much complexity to it would move away from it's niche and quite honestly be a diservice to the game itself.

I like beer and pretzels as much as the next guy, but there's no reason thinking people can't manage a little bit more complexity and still have casual fun and quick games. This game just begs for a little more complexity IMO but with this industry, the marketing people decide what niche games will cater to, and what games will be funded to production.