Artillery questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room



Message


parzival -> Artillery questions (3/12/2010 1:55:06 PM)

These questions may have been asked before but cause I dont find the answers I will ask them anyway:

1) Range 1 artillery : If I want this artillery to support my defense is it necesssary to locate it into the very same hex that is attacked or is adjacent hex enough? I have always thought that artillery should be kept behind the lines cause it is rather vulnerable to direct attacks.

2)Artillery in reserve : What are the effects of putting the artillery into local/tactical reserve mode: will artillery in tactical reserve support also noncooperative units?

3)Are there any circumstances when it would be useful to locate artillery in the front line and not behind the lines? If enemy attacks a hex where there is an artillery unit, does that artilley unit use it defense ar attack strength? How about when artillery unit behind the lines supports defense? Does entrenching make any difference?




golden delicious -> RE: Artillery questions (3/12/2010 7:34:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parzival

These questions may have been asked before but cause I dont find the answers I will ask them anyway:

1) Range 1 artillery : If I want this artillery to support my defense is it necesssary to locate it into the very same hex that is attacked or is adjacent hex enough? I have always thought that artillery should be kept behind the lines cause it is rather vulnerable to direct attacks.


Defending artillery supports defending units in range. So that means range 1 artillery supports adjacent units, range 2 supports units within 2 hexes, and so on.

quote:

3)Are there any circumstances when it would be useful to locate artillery in the front line and not behind the lines?


Yes;
a) when attacking with range 1 artillery (in the present version, using tactical reserve)
b) to increase the number of defending units within range of the artillery




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/25/2010 12:27:22 AM)

Should artillery in Tactical Reserve support all combats, or should it depend on the formation support levels? I ask because if a formation of artillery units is put on Internal Support, it supports all combats within range regardless of unit color schemes.




Panama -> RE: Artillery questions (10/25/2010 4:06:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Should artillery in Tactical Reserve support all combats, or should it depend on the formation support levels? I ask because if a formation of artillery units is put on Internal Support, it supports all combats within range regardless of unit color schemes.


Hmm...I always thought if an artillery unit was in a formation and that formation was on internal support the artillery unit could only support units in that formation it is a part of. It should do so regardless of the counter colors in the formation as long as the artillery and units of different colors were all in the exact same formation.

If a unit was in a different formation than the artillery unit it could not support it because the formation the artillery was a part of was on internal support regardless of unit colors.

At least this has been my belief.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/25/2010 7:33:39 AM)

That was my belief too, but I think there is also a percentage chance that artillery may support non-formation combats.

I'm dealing with four different corps, each with its own corp artillery. First I had them set to Army Support and I noticed they were supporting most combats within range regardless of formation or unit color. So I set them all to Internal Support and there was no change. Then I changed all the unit colors so that they were very different (one corp green, one brown, one red, and one tan), but again there was no change.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (10/25/2010 8:44:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

That was my belief too, but I think there is also a percentage chance that artillery may support non-formation combats.

I'm dealing with four different corps, each with its own corp artillery. First I had them set to Army Support and I noticed they were supporting most combats within range regardless of formation or unit color. So I set them all to Internal Support and there was no change. Then I changed all the unit colors so that they were very different (one corp green, one brown, one red, and one tan), but again there was no change.


We're going to have to know more about what you're doing, because I can't reproduce this. Artillery will only join attacks it has cooperation with.

One possibility: Cooperation is best case. So, the cooperation levels of all attackers matters. If one of them has free support, then anything can join the attack.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/25/2010 12:46:28 PM)

If you can't reproduce it then maybe it is a possible issue with .178, or with XP or Win98. I can send you the scenario file I am working with if you would like to try it. It is small and easy. All formations are set to Internal Support, yet they cooperate with each other. Not every combat, but most of them. I would say probably 75%.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 5:27:08 AM)

Here's a screen shot, four formations of different colors, all on Internal Support. When I attack with one color, artillery of all others within range support. All formations in the scenario are set to Internal Support. This is a scenario I am working on, so I can send it to you if you like. I also tried 'Rhine 44' because it has all different colored formations on Internal Support and I get the same result. That scenario is on Rugged Defense.

I usually leave the combat report option off, so I monitor the artillery supply levels. Seeing them drop 5 or 10 points lets me know they are supporting. Just to make sure, I turned on the combat reports and they did report that formations were supporting each other. [:@]

[image]local://upfiles/24850/D44AA6C345264221B18557D0D5F2BF21.jpg[/image]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 3:10:48 PM)

Are the attacks forcing retreats? If so, that can cause disengagement attacks. Cooperation is not used for disengagement attacks (because there's nothing to cooperate with - just a moving enemy unit). Perhaps that's what you're seeing.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 4:02:16 PM)

Testing it - that is certainly true, in attacks where there were no retreats things looked to work as expected. But as soon as the enemy retreated and suffered a disengagement attack, all batteries jumped in on the action! The combat report scrolls and scrolls! What a sight to have all those batteries involved! Air units seemed to still ignore cooperation rules and joined in every attack, retreats or not.

But still, I wonder if it should be this way? Should all artillery on the board join in to pound a retreating enemy?




Telumar -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 5:25:10 PM)

I suppose it should not be that way. It's absolute nonsense, at least at the lower unit scales. Hopefully we will see a fix for this.

Btw, what's the map scale of the screenshot? Is that 1 km? Appears to me that Caen might be bigger than Rome..




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 10:38:27 PM)

The problem is, who are you going to be cooperating with? Disengagement attacks are a consequence of enemy movement. They can actually occur in the enemy movement phase. It's not a coordinated attack by friendly units - it's actually more like an interdiction strike. So, everybody gets to join in.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 10:43:03 PM)

It seems like there should be a fix, but maybe something else is involved.

The scale is 1 km. The original map was done from current google images, and I'm making changes as historical images are found. I haven't been too concerned with Caen north of the Orne as it doesn't come into play. But the part south of the Orne has to be proper. Goodwood has always been a favorite of mine, but its very much tactical. Squeezing it into TOAW probably isn't fair.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/29/2010 10:46:55 PM)

quote:

Disengagement attacks are a consequence of enemy movement. They can actually occur in the enemy movement phase.


Ok, but aren't disengagement attacks prompted by adjacent units? If so, non cooperating assets should maybe not be involved?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (10/30/2010 4:24:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Disengagement attacks are a consequence of enemy movement. They can actually occur in the enemy movement phase.


Ok, but aren't disengagement attacks prompted by adjacent units? If so, non cooperating assets should maybe not be involved?


But not as a coordinated, planned attack. It really is more like interdiction. It's been like that since TOAW I.

I can see a case for some refinement, though. Interdiction doesn't bring the entire airforce every time. Perhaps there should be a similar limit of some sort.




BigDuke66 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/30/2010 10:23:56 PM)

Yes some kind of check should be done, isn't there a "Communication check"?




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Artillery questions (10/30/2010 11:25:47 PM)

I don't know how it does work, but I would think that if unit X suffers an attack while disengaging from unit Y, that would trigger a check for any units supporting unit Y to also attack, but not for all units on the board.

Air units on Internal should also not cooperate with everybody. How else can we assign the Typhoons to support the VIII Corp advance without flying all over the map supporting everybody and using up their supply and effectiveness, just as the artillery does.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (10/31/2010 4:17:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Air units on Internal should also not cooperate with everybody. How else can we assign the Typhoons to support the VIII Corp advance without flying all over the map supporting everybody and using up their supply and effectiveness, just as the artillery does.


Goes back to ACOW at least. I'm not sure about the rationale. Only Norm knows.




Champagne -> RE: Artillery questions (6/12/2012 5:40:47 PM)

Could we re-visit this great thread?

I would like some additional advice concerning use of friendly arty when you are on defense in a scenario, say, the Allies during a Bulge scenario.

Should you use your arty to Bombard during your turn?

Or is it better to hold off on that and let your arty respond during the enemy's turn?

What's the best setting for your defending arty? Tactical Reserve? Dug in?

Thanks very much.




Telumar -> RE: Artillery questions (6/13/2012 7:26:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Champagne

Could we re-visit this great thread?

I would like some additional advice concerning use of friendly arty when you are on defense in a scenario, say, the Allies during a Bulge scenario.

Should you use your arty to Bombard during your turn?

Or is it better to hold off on that and let your arty respond during the enemy's turn?

What's the best setting for your defending arty? Tactical Reserve? Dug in?

Thanks very much.


I usually don't do mere bombardments on enemy stacks when i'm on the defence. It's not worth the supply/readiness cost. The arty does a better job in defensive support. There are exceptions though: red or yellow density stacks and if the attrition divider is set low (less than 10). And "counter battery". If i know the enemy arty is out of range range for counterbattery i sometimes bombard enemy artillery (ask Ogar ;) ).

For the "best setting": for defensive support there is no difference between tactical reserve or digging in. But if your artillery is dug in it can't be shelled/bombed out of its supporting deployment as easily as if the unit is set on tactical reserve. In the case of an enemy breakthrough a well fortified artillery unit can fend off ground assaults better than on tactical reserve. But that again depends on scenario design and unit setup..





Champagne -> RE: Artillery questions (6/13/2012 3:57:03 PM)

Thanks so much for this great info.

Any other experienced hands should add on their thoughts. There are lots of interested parties who don't know as much as do you.

SO.

Digging in my own Arty does not hinder its ability to fire in defensive support during the upcoming enemy turn?




ogar -> RE: Artillery questions (6/15/2012 6:00:59 PM)

Naming calls...

I think I shift 'philosophies' based on the scenario -- and I'm not familiar with any of the Bulge scenarios, so I can't get specific on yours.
If the scale allows for a lot of separate artillery units (Anzio 1KM or 2KM, TWIN,...) I play differently than, say, Road to Moscow, where there are only a few artillery units, comparatively. And it depends on how the scenario is designed - in some, micro-ing the artillery does not matter, even if you have the units; and who is my opponent, some just wheel 'em up, point, dig and that's it; others who are more detailed, and I think, difficult; and then there's Telumar....

Short version - most of the time I play with artillery units set to overlap the infantry/armor across the line, and deep (where do I think the front will be in 2 or 3 turns). I set most of the artillery in D, E, F is support; I may reserve heavy artillery for direct fires (see below); I use TR when I want flexibility in moving artillery during the time and/or support fire at reduced supply cost.

Longer version -

I do check my units - Man,I hate those mixes of units where 105s are jumbled with 155s and/or 120mm mortars. Range matters, so I try to locate supporting artillery so the maximum amount of tubes bear on the likely zone.
On defense, I mostly go for digging in artillery support to get maximum supporting effect. Exceptions are the heavier guns -- 150/6in guns and larger. Their shell weights make these very effective on breaking down entrenched levels, knocking opponent artillery out of TR,D,E,F - and disrupting likely attackers.

With the new supply rules, I found it important to limit support so that units were not always deep cherry red; sometimes, ya gotta just blast away, but you do get more effect from a unit with higher supply and more readiness. Again, this depends on scenarios - in Anzio 1KM, playing as Allies, I found myself resting 1 out 3 of the 105 batteries almost every turn.
And here's where support comes in, if support levels are Army,Force,Free and the designer has not gone beserk with color-coding units, the artillery units will support everything it can within range, and you wind up burning a lot of supply in disengagement fires, counter-battery, etc for actions or units that I would consider marginal. You're just not shelling against the those infantry regiments hitting your front lines, you shelling everthing that triggers recon and that's a lot of triggering.

So rest helps focus, but resting means that the artillery is more vulnerable to air and/or counter-battery and/or a break-through assault, even when in a hex at 70% or higher entrenchment, the losses are higher than when that unit is in D, E, F.

As Curtis points out, setting a unit at TR allows freedom during the turn to later dig in, or move, or directly bombard some unit. And if the turn ends early, you are in support.
As I understand it, TR does not deliver the same support as D or E or F -- TR delivers one-half the amount. So a TR set at LL will be as effective as D set at ML. Still, that does add up.
AND it only burns half the supply -- this really matters when supply is constrained.

This is for artillery -- air and naval are different cans, and different worms. Oh, and I do not always do as I say - again, scenario and opponent and game-turn-situation matter.

As for those long-range K18s of Telumar's, well, that's why Wallis invented the Wellington - damn fine tactical bomber.




Champagne -> RE: Artillery questions (6/15/2012 6:05:39 PM)

Thank, ogar!

Very helpful !




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Artillery questions (6/16/2012 12:35:24 PM)

Craig,

Have a look at my Tutorial '41 scenario where you can see how managing an Artillery Regimnent of your Panzer Division (The 11th) can make a different.

Klink, Oberst




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (6/16/2012 3:27:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ogar

So rest helps focus, but resting means that the artillery is more vulnerable to air and/or counter-battery and/or a break-through assault, even when in a hex at 70% or higher entrenchment, the losses are higher than when that unit is in D, E, F.


The entrenchment level in a hex provides no defensive benefit. It only affects how fast a unit can dig in.

quote:

As I understand it, TR does not deliver the same support as D or E or F -- TR delivers one-half the amount. So a TR set at LL will be as effective as D set at ML. Still, that does add up.
AND it only burns half the supply -- this really matters when supply is constrained.


TR functions the same as D or E or F. All deliver half the amount and all consume half the supply when indirectly supporting. Their loss tolerance settings only have an effect if they are directly assigned to a bombardment sans a ground attack - and TR is, again, the same as D, E, or F in that regard. If directly assigned to support a ground assault, their loss tolerance settings again have no effect.




ColinWright -> RE: Artillery questions (6/16/2012 6:53:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


...If directly assigned to support a ground assault, their loss tolerance settings again have no effect.


I once asked Norm very question you answer here. He was somewhat more ambiguous -- he said the loss setting of artillery supporting a ground assault could affect how many rounds were used.

It's possible he just wasn't sure. It's also possible things have changed since then. It's even possible he was just wrong. However, the above is what he did say.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery questions (6/16/2012 7:33:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I once asked Norm very question you answer here. He was somewhat more ambiguous -- he said the loss setting of artillery supporting a ground assault could affect how many rounds were used.

It's possible he just wasn't sure. It's also possible things have changed since then. It's even possible he was just wrong. However, the above is what he did say.


It's possible you're mis-remembering. In fact, my memory is of getting the exact opposite response from Norm. As I recall it, he expressly said that those settings don't matter if the artillery is supporting an assault.

Regardless, I've used Ignore Losses on such supporters since that feature was added (before ACOW?) without adverse loss of rounds.

Now, the settings could possibly affect a defending artillery unit's retention of a support deployment upon bombardment. Perhaps that's what he meant.

Edit: Let me add that air units are different animals. Since they have to go through enemy AS and AAA, their loss setting affects whether they get to drop their bombs at all. This is a real problem with Norm's technique here. You try to bomb for one round, but the planes will only get through if you use Ignore Losses. While the loss setting is being used to determine how many rounds to bomb, it still has to be used for morale checks. It would have been better to create a separate parameter for setting the bombing rounds.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375