Reducing the affect of artillery

[Arimus]

I want to reduce the affect of artillery in terms of the casualties it is inflicting (IMO, too many companies are being wiped out by artillery) and was wondering what would be the best way to do it.
I thought about reducing the burst radious of each gun or the accuracy, but that is alot of moding.
My best idea is to double the ammo weight (not the shell weight) and mod each scenario, giving each artillery unit half the ammo. The idea being to reduce the number of missions.
Thoughts?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

You might want to take a look at the ammunition. It's effects can be modified in the estab editor.

[FredSanford3]

I'm thinking its too powerful as well. I was thinking of reducing accuracy across the board as a fix.

Lots of people want detailed AAR stats to see who the most effective units are- I'd be interested in seeing the % casualties by artillery, etc. I know it was high (70-80%), but it still seems dominant- even against armored units.

[Arjuna]

80% of casualties sounds pretty dominant to me![:)]

[Arimus]

Sorry Dave, but I call BS on that percentage. Most casualty figures for the Russians and Japanese are guestimates, let alone what they died from.
The Russians, Germans, Japs and Chinese represent the majority of the casualties from WWII. How can someone possible deduce from the sources from those nations that 80% of the casualties were caused by artillery?
From what I have read, artillery was very important in suppressing an enemy and breaking up attacks/causing confusion, but not at wiping out units. To many times I have read "...the artillery barrage lasted for x hours but caused little damage...
 
Finally, too many of these scenarios are not playing out like they historically did and from what I have seen its because of the artillery units.
I just played the Losheim Gap and after the artillery was done with the Germans, I could have counterattacked and ran them off the map.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Let me chime in here... [;)]

If players will simply let artillery in the game do its deal, they'll likely see outcomes that are roughly in accord with historical norms for WW2.

On the other hand, if they want to group every artillery battery/battalion/regiment in a scenario into a player-controlled HE-death-star, things are likely to go awry.

Eighty-percent is spot on.

What was to account for the outcomes, otherwise, small-arms or some other agent of death?

It darn sure wasn't AFV, or its poor-mans equivalent, "cold-steel!"

[Redmarkus5]

My concern with artillery isn't the 80% casualty rate, it's the way units keep moving when under bombardment.  Shouldn't they halt and take cover?

[Arjuna]

redmarkus4,

A unit caught out in the open during a move is more than likely to retreat if targeted by arty. Staying put without any cover is death. On the other hand a unit that is already deployed or better still dug in or entrenched is more likely to stay put and weather the bombardment. I did increase the probability of units staying put under bombardment, especially if they were already deployed or dug in. Maybe we can tweak this further. But before doing so, I want to see some stats of cases where deployed or better units subjected to bombardment actually retreat or rout. It's time for you guys to do a little research so we can base this on empirical study rather than gut feel.

[TMO]

The following quotes are from The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment, Brigadier A. L. Pemberton, MC, The War Office, 1951.

p.277

...and the gun, after a period of apparent subjugation by the tank during the dark days of 1940 and 1941, had been restored to a position of great, if not prime, importance on the battlefield. In the words of Field Marshal Montgomery, "The Gunners have risen to great heights in this war and I doubt if the artillery has ever been so efficient as it is today."

p.142 describing El Alemein.

The immediate effect of our counter-battery bombardment was impressive. By 2200 hours, when the infantry were due to begin their advance, all hostile guns had been silenced, and they were kept in this condition until daylight by air attacks, first by Wellingtons and Albacores and then by night fighters, which shot up the flashes of any guns that opened fire. As a result the enemy's forward defences were captured without serious opposition. On the main position, however, a much sterner resistance was encountered. By this time the enemy artillery was beginning to reassert itself and from now on our infantry casualties were due more to gun and mortar fire than to bullets.

p.231 describing Normandy.

The normal German infantry division included 57x8-cm. and 12x12-cm. mortars, with maximum ranges of 2,600 and 6,500 yards respectively, and it was estimated that about 70 per cent. of the British casualties in Normandy were caused by mortar fire.

p.242 describing the attack on the Gothic Line.

It was estimated in 1 Canadian Corps that 58.7 per cent. of their casualties in this fighting were caused by H.E. shell fire, 11.7 per cent. by small arms, and 7.1 per cent. by mortar fire.

From Overlord, Max Hastings, Papermac, 1984.
pp.246-247.

Every forward unit suffered a steady drain of casualties from snipers, mortaring and artillery fire, which both sides employed daily to maintain pressure upon each other, the Allies in greater volume since they possessed greater firepower. 2nd Panzer reported in July that they were recieving an average of 4,000 incoming artillery and 5,000 mortar rounds a day on their front, rising dramatically during British attacks to a total of 3,500 rounds in two hours on one occasion. ...To emphasize the staggering weight of firepower that the Allies employed in support of their movements, it is worth citing the example of a minor operation near Cristot on 16 June. ...A company of heavy 4.2-inch mortars stonked selected German positions from H-15 to H-Hour. The operation itself was supported by seven field regiments of 25-pounders, and four field regiments of medium guns. ...At 1.15 p.m. the battalion passed through Cristot, where it reorganized. They found 17 German dead in the village and two armoured cars and one soft-skinned vehicle destroyed. The British had lost three killed and 24 wounded, all by enemy mortars.

In my opinion these quotes demonstrate the dominance of artillery on the WWII battlefield and that the number of casualties caused by artillery in the game is modelled pretty accurately.

Regards

Tim

[Arimus]

 
What I don't like is the suppression-casualties-surrender result.  A unit is hit by artillery, gets suppressed and stuck, takes it's obligitory 80% casualties, then surrenders.
 
 I agree that artillery caused the majority of the casualties in WWII on the Western Front, I don't think that is being questioned. However, I don't think they caused them at the rate currently portrayed in the game.
A simple test is to play the scenarios. Can we repeat what happened? No? Why not? Artillery cleaning house? Maybe artillery needs modded!
 
So, any ideas on the best way to mod it?
 
Tim,
In static battles like Normandy and El Alemein, artillery is going to dominate the fight.  But you can't take data from a few battles and extrapolate to cover all of WWII.
 
For example,
 
"The massed guns and Werfers of the XLVII Panzer Corps which roared out at 0530 on 16 December gave the Americans their first warning. But the tactical effect of this artillery preparation was considerably less than the German planners had anticipated."
 
I can't take that statement and apply it to all artillery prep and state that all prepatory artillery was useless.
 
And I am willing to bet that I can dig up a quote from Guderian stating that tanks were supreme.

[TMO]

For those interested in this kind of thing, this is a very good website:

http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

Regards

Tim

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

 
What I don't like is the suppression-casualties-surrender result.  A unit is hit by artillery, gets suppressed and stuck, takes it's obligitory 80% casualties, then surrenders.

I find this troubling also, at least the surrender element of the routine. Perhaps, they ought to just be rendered hors de combat after a time, rather than surrendering:

thousand yard stare

I did some North Africa scenarios for CotA, and reached the conclusion that the premier weapon in 1941 was neither the "Matilda" nor the "dreaded 88," but rather the 25-pounder, when used grand-battery style.

And I am willing to bet that I can dig up a quote from Guderian stating that tanks were supreme.

Supreme at what? Terrorizing troops into capitulation, or inflicting casualties? They simply didn't have the ammo or rate of fire to kill too terribly many of the enemy, scare the heck of them sure, but not wipe them out. I suspect that the accompanying infantry and supporting artillery and Stuka would have killed more of the enemy than the armour.

[Arimus]

Maybe. I don't have evidence to refute your hunch. My hunch is that tanks were extremely dangerous in WWII, hence the plethora of AT weapons (special aircraft, AT guns, Tank Destroyers, Inf AT weapons, etc). There just wasn't that many of them.
 
I cut the at-start ammo to 25%, and doubled the weight of the ammo ordered. I'm hoping this will reduce the rate of bombardment missions.

[krupp_88mm]

Causal Agent -- Percentage of wounds

Mortar, grenade, aerial bomb, shell - 75

Bullet, anti-tank shell - 10

Landmine, booby-trap - 10

Blast, crush - 2

Chemical(phosphorous) - 2

Other - 1


He then goes on to note "as a general rule gunshot wounds accounted for between 25 and 30 per cent of all wounds in Africa, Burma and northwest Europe. The overall figures are also somewhat distorted in that they refer only to wounded men; a large proportion of those who later died of their wounds were gunshot wounded cases, and it seems fair to assume that such wounds were also a prime cause of instant fatalies. This is supported by certain American figures. In both the Pacific and the Mediterranean it was found that of all those hit by bullets, 23 per cent were killed outright or died of their wounds. The equivalent figure for casualties from artillery fire was 19 per cent, from mortar fire 10 percent and from grenades 5 percent. Another sample of over 2,000 men hit made the smae point, and also showed that although bullets were the greatest killer, 42 percent of men hit by machine-gun fire died of their wounds as against 26 percent of those hit by rifle fire."

okay so artillery overall counting close range mortars and the like is probably about 60% or so of casualties (some soldiers even being artillery casualty multiple times)(grenades and air attacks included in the statistics), but an important thing to note is that artillery casualties are far more likely to not be kills, in that many soldiers are wounded by shrapnel, but have not completely lost their capacity to fight, whereas bullet wounds are magnitudes more deadly, so does this game simulate wounded or lightly wounded soldiers? if not then reducing the artillery casualties somewhat to take account that some casualties are non- incapacitating wounds would make sense, maybe by half? also some of the non-incapacitating casualties might be better modeled through suppression, i think half might sound about right, but perhaps increase the disruption slightly?

[wodin]

I copied the my post below as I thought it relevant to this thread aswell.

Anybody think the Arty is to precise at the moment....I know it was the cause of huge casualites but it sometimes feels the Arty can suddenly decimate an entire force in no time at all....this I know happened and the Germans hated the American Arty but with having an abstract kind of map it does seem an awful lot of Batteries are hitting the target....seems more like how I imagine modern Arty could perform...just a thought...poor old Skornzey got a bag full of shrapnel...the Arty decimated an entire battalion very quickly indeed...Maybe the spotting rules need to adjusted....just because the unit counter has line of sight of another unit counter doesn't mean that the FOO can see everything...they might see some troops and guess where the rest are or even hear engines so direct Arty in but I bet alot missed.

[Arimus]

Reducing the ammo and doubling the weight (weight of ordered rounds, not shell weight) helped and did not take much time to mod. Now I don't have artillery raining down on me (or firing it) from dawn to dusk!


I mentioned in another thread that there are many things that can cause a fire mission to fail or go off mark, that do not seem to be simulated in the game.

Just last night I watched a special on a convoy battle in Iraq where the lead of the convoy lost comms to the rear. Even though the Americans paid special attention to there comm equipment and training so that everyone could call in a fire mission, it still was not 100%.

I myself have had to cancel an exercise fire mission because I had to displace and once lost comms because the battery changed freqs at midnight!

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: wodin

poor old Skornzey got a bag full of shrapnel...the Arty decimated an entire battalion very quickly indeed...Maybe the spotting rules need to adjusted....

Have you guys read about what happened to Skorzeney's Battalion at Malmedy, or the 12SS at Dom. Bütgenbach and Elsenborn Ridge? It really was nothing short of slaughter by the american artillery.

[Arimus]

There are numerous examples of artillery not having much affect.
 
I am attempting to edit the affect of artillery in scenarios that are not playing out as they historically did due to the artillery.
Specifically, I would like to make them less responsive and leave the actual bombardments as they are.

[Arimus]

The heavy concentration of American artillery supporting CCB also gave the Germans pause. It seems probable that the failure of the 183d
Regiment to make any headway against the American right wing in the Heckhuscheid sector on 16 and 17 December was largely caused by the sharp tactics in progressive displacement and the excellent defensive fires of the 591st Field Artillery Battalion (Lt. Col. Phillip F. Hoover) and its reinforcing battalions from the corps artillery. The 8-inch howitzers of the 578th Field Artillery Battalion, for example, fired 108 tons of shells between the beginning of the German attack and 1030 on 17 December against the enemy attack positions opposite the 424th Infantry. But only in the Heckhuscheid-Winterspelt sector had the prearranged and sizable groupment of VIII Corps artillery behind the corps left wing played any decisive role on 16 and 17 December.

Note the words "gave them pause" vs something like "wiped out most of the regiment" and note the lack of a decisive role on all but one section of the front (the 424th's).