Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire



Message


HansLemurson -> Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 5:19:37 AM)

When you're designing Artillery, you are presented with the option to choose the caliber of your guns. Is there any reason NOT to go max size?
-Does the increased weight slow you down? Make it harder to move by truck?
-Are higher calibers less ammo-efficient?
-Do you risk "putting all your eggs in one basket" and have your guns destroyed more easily?

Because other than those risks, if you're trying to get the most "Bang for your Buck" (or Firepower for your Metal) is to use the highest caliber available. Increasing the "density" of your firepower also lets your mobile artillery use fewer Trucks, and lets your Siege battalions incorporate even more firepower into their ranks.

Is there any reason not to use the Biggest Gun available?




Malevolence -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 5:25:32 AM)

Really depends on your fighting style.

I have never built a formation above Brigade. I use fast, inexpensive units in small groups. Mobility before firepower. Fix most opponent units, isolate and concentrate to destroy.

I also notice that discovery and research tend to field better technology quickly. Big expensive models aren't as economical over time.

Rockets however are boss. Give each of your fronts a battalion or regiment to support your main effort.




HansLemurson -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 5:48:12 AM)

Right, but I'm considering the situation of building 10 normal-sized Artillery vs. 5 extra-large Artillery.




Malevolence -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 6:53:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

Right, but I'm considering the situation of building 10 normal-sized Artillery vs. 5 extra-large Artillery.


Assuming you mean the models, are you only using 5 vs 10? You design the model, but the OOB template demands the quantity for unit integrity.

If you supersize your artillery model, the OOB TO&E demands the same quantity of pieces regardless.

zgrssd and few others convinced me of the value of including artillery with infantry. The two go hand in glove as soon as the siege, etc. type is available. Infantry is designed with a malus without artillery.

I also use independent artillery units for support in order to reduce units before the offensive (e.g. rockets).

You could build two models, but your question didn't seem to ask about the correct ratio. It seemed to be an either/or question.

I build multiple variants of light tanks based on the same chassis (i.e. design score).

[image]local://upfiles/34589/DE834200B8B5499FB005AD1944045C8A.jpg[/image]

Now if you mean building 10 formations versus 5 formations with more firepower? In this game 10 formations is better. I build as many as my economy can support.

You need to herd, block, and contain enemy units.

The destroying part is easy. You should be pushing every enemy unit into a situation where your main effort is surrounding each enemy stack on six sides. Read posts by zgrssd and others about how to manage bonuses to good effect.

Channel your inner Genghis Khan. Let them hear the screams of Bamyan.




HansLemurson -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 8:10:57 AM)

[&:]
I'm not ASKING about how you like to tactically deploy your troops to surround your enemy. Why do BOTH of your replies talk about this?

What I'm asking is: Given that Higher Caliber artillery has more Cost-Effective Firepower, is it better to build MORE Small guns, or Fewer BIG guns?

Edit: toned down original ire from first response. Off-topic wisdom is still wisdom.
"I like to use lots of units" does partially answer this but, Artillery isn't what I use for my inexpensive mobile flanking forces. I'm thinking more on the lines of "4 Independent Artillery Support Battalions" versus "2 Independent Artillery Support Battalions".




demiare -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 11:36:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson
What I'm asking is: Given that Higher Caliber artillery has more Cost-Effective Firepower, is it better to build MORE Small guns, or Fewer BIG guns?


How you're using artillery? As part of attacking force or to bombard hex prior attacking?

If first - then less you have units it's better (you will get less penalty for outnumbering enemy), so big guns are winning.

If second - then better have more brigades & more guns as it provide higher versatility (but expensive in manpower).

My IMHO - artillery is unsuited for long-range bombardment, so better to have biggest guns in siege+ battalions. Rockets/missiles are for bombardment (as their range often allow them to attack several turns without moving = more damage).

Purely to roleplay I keeping small group of mechanized artillery, but because of lack any balancing in game - it doesn't worth it at all (towed artillery is not wasting AP to setup position before firing like it should & amount of artillery in enemy battalions is so scarce to make counter-battery issues important).




zgrssd -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 11:51:21 AM)

"-Does the increased weight slow you down? Make it harder to move by truck?"
No, it does not. It really is an issue with this part of the mechanic. Hopefully Vic will get around to reworking the Trucks soon.

"-Are higher calibers less ammo-efficient? "
Kinda?
They do eat more ammo.
Also, Artillery has a sort of capped damage. They get more attacks, rather then stronger attacks. So the damage is not directly increasing with higher callibre.
In direct combat, the number of attacks is most usefull (as it prevents enemy breakthroughs).
In ranged combat, it high damage would be more usefull I think.

"-Do you risk "putting all your eggs in one basket" and have your guns destroyed more easily?"
If you forget to have infantry units on top of them? Sure.
But they add to Infantry in defensive combat. So as long as they are somewhat protected with someone in the front, they will be a very hard target to attack.




Malevolence -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 1:51:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

[&:]
I'm not ASKING about how you like to tactically deploy your troops to surround your enemy. Why do BOTH of your replies talk about this?

What I'm asking is: Given that Higher Caliber artillery has more Cost-Effective Firepower, is it better to build MORE Small guns, or Fewer BIG guns?


Simply, because you should first and foremost design weapons based on their intended employment within your force structure.

You asked an evaluative question, but you didn't state your requirement for artillery up front---how you employ artillery. It's not the same for everyone and it matters.

First statement...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Really depends on your fighting style.


Naively, you want an engineering answer, before you have done the "art" of war part first.




jimwinsor -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 4:11:26 PM)

"-Does the increased weight slow you down? Make it harder to move by truck?"

If by 'move by truck' you mean strategic movement, then yes higher calibers will make it harder to strat move ... I think. Or at least I strongly suspect.

The evidence I have is anecdotal from a recent game, where I was able to strat move my early game 105mm unit without too much issue ... but after I redesigned to 300mm I was almost never able to strat move the unit.

Then there is common sense evidence. The models do indeed have a "weight" statistic, and higher calibers not surprisingly weigh more. And it stand to reason Vic has based strategic movement costs around weight. So, I would call it likely bigger guns are indeed harder to strat move by both truck and train.




zgrssd -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 6:16:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

"-Does the increased weight slow you down? Make it harder to move by truck?"

If by 'move by truck' you mean strategic movement, then yes higher calibers will make it harder to strat move ... I think. Or at least I strongly suspect.

The evidence I have is anecdotal from a recent game, where I was able to strat move my early game 105mm unit without too much issue ... but after I redesigned to 300mm I was almost never able to strat move the unit.

Then there is common sense evidence. The models do indeed have a "weight" statistic, and higher calibers not surprisingly weigh more. And it stand to reason Vic has based strategic movement costs around weight. So, I would call it likely bigger guns are indeed harder to strat move by both truck and train.

5.11.1.7 has the figures, somewhat.

Units like Trucks, Buggies and Tanks apparently have a weight of "10 or more" for Cargo Calculation.

A real test would be, if you could raise them. Or looking if they have a weight stat similar to the one on Vehicles.




Dan1911 -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/12/2020 7:57:15 PM)

Yhea i don't think trucks are modeling the weight of their towed artillery atm.
You can make trucks with bigger engine but they just use more fuel, theirs no weight/ap mechanic iirc...
So bigger guns have all the advantages if you have a lot of metal




sillygoy -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/13/2020 4:43:07 AM)

If you're fighting a very big war, ammo consumption can be a thing to consider. If your logistical network is not up to the task it could be clogged by requests from heavy artillery units for more ammo.




HansLemurson -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/13/2020 5:30:22 AM)

Right, which is why I'm considering the question of "Fewer BIG guns vs. More Small guns"

All the numbers seem to suggest that for the same amount of firepower, if you build Bigger guns, you save on Metal, Trucks, and Ammunition.

This trade-off is not possible however when Artillery is integrated into another TOE, like Siege Brigades. Then the Bigger guns are more expensive, and ammunition hungry. But you do also gain their enhanced firepower, so perhaps it is worth it? I mean, why integrate artillery into an Infantry formation if you didn't want the added firepower? It would be as though you had inserted 2 sub-units instead of 1. And would that be worthwhile?

edit: I got my phrasing backwards!
Original text: "More BIGGER guns vs. Fewer Smaller guns", which is obvious nonsense.




sillygoy -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/13/2020 6:44:23 AM)

The only limiting factors as far as I can see are your industry and logistical network. So the best thing to do would probably be to field as many of the heaviest artillery pieces you can actually afford, production and logistics-wise, modified for the mission you're tasking your artillery to complete in the first place. It takes a 150mm artillery piece or heavier to do appreciable damage to massed mid-game armored formations, for example. And I'd say 60mm is the lower limit for effective fire against entrenched infantry.

Personally, I never field towed pieces smaller than 105mm, but because I don't want to deal with the complexity of juggling different models around I just end up mass-producing that one caliber to form the standard artillery weapon in my armed forces. I give my mechanized artillery 150mm and larger guns to give them more punch.

I guess the question is whether you want to put your eggs into one powerful (lol) basket or not, trading flexibility for sheer firepower. With the way calibers work in the game, heavy artillery can be absolutely devastating, because a big enough bore can defeat or even overwhelm the toughness of heavy tanks. At the same time, having fewer but heavier artillery pieces in fewer units means it'd take only a couple of rocket barrages to cripple your independent artillery units. Also they'll eat up your production and supply lines to the point where replacements have to wait for the trucks to finish shipping ammo before they can join their units.




demiare -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/13/2020 7:57:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillygoy
With the way calibers work in the game, heavy artillery can be absolutely devastating, because a big enough bore can defeat or even overwhelm the toughness of heavy tanks.


Well actually it's more like "sandblasting". Artillery have too small hard attack to pose any threat to tanks, except there is two big "BUT":
1) Random nature of defense. So even if you're rolling d100 vs d1000 - more rolls (=more attacks) you're doing the better chance for having lucky hit.
2) Combat multipliers. They're crazily OP. So get a good leader, pursuit meritocracy, pick "Fist", pick guns boosting doctrine - and enjoy melting enemy tanks.




sillygoy -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/13/2020 9:01:41 AM)

True, artillery is not going to really be killing too many tanks on their own. Their main purpose is to reduce the readiness of enemy armor such that they're easy pickings for attack by other forces. They can't do this very effectively though if their calibers are too small relative to the armor thickness of the enemy tanks. Hence if you're fighting tanks, heavy artillery is the way to go.




zgrssd -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/14/2020 11:13:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

Right, which is why I'm considering the question of "More BIGGER guns vs. Fewer Smaller guns"

All the numbers seem to suggest that for the same amount of firepower, if you build Bigger guns, you save on Metal, Trucks, and Ammunition.


What about the IP, Metal and Manpower to even raise those formations?
How do you ignore that factor?
Especially manpower, wich is usually the most limited resources in the game?

How is raising 10 times as many smaler guns even a consideration?




HansLemurson -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/14/2020 11:43:54 AM)

Wait a minute, did I get my quote backwards? [X(]
I meant Fewer Big Guns vs. More Small Guns.
...
Anyways, yes, I did neglect Manpower from my considerations. I didn't consider it an important factor given how small a portion of my forces the Artillery would make up compared to Infantry.

In any case, I was never seriously thinking about building swarms of Artillery Battalions equipped with the lightest of guns. (Maybe Malevolence would try that.)

What I was pondering is what risks I am taking by choosing the simplistic policy of "Always design the biggest gun possible". Manpower savings is just yet another point in favor of that policy.




Malevolence -> RE: Any downsides to MASSIVE Artillery pieces? (8/14/2020 12:37:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

In any case, I was never seriously thinking about building swarms of Artillery Battalions equipped with the lightest of guns. (Maybe Malevolence would try that.)


Actually I'm very conventional, because it's a very conventional game. But I do practice maneuver instead of attrition. [:'(]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.101563E-02