I notice on the official website that artillery is not listed among the official units of military organization. Is artillery being ignored...or did they just forget to mention it...?
Rob
Rob
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
They probably are represnting division or corp level units. Thus independent artilerly isnt mention since there was no such thing as a division of atilerly.
I think you could be wrong.
In American Civil War (known to be the best USA-CSA simulation wargame) there are 3 type of brigades Infantry-Cavalry-Artillery.
you can draft your manpower into 4 categories = infantry, cavalry, artillery and navy. Depending were you want to lay emphasis,
In American Civil War (known to be the best USA-CSA simulation wargame) there are 3 type of brigades Infantry-Cavalry-Artillery.
you can draft your manpower into 4 categories = infantry, cavalry, artillery and navy. Depending were you want to lay emphasis,
The Royal Horse Artilery springs to mind and I'm sure there are other regiments of artilery.
My army knowledge isn't so good so I'm not sure how regiment translates to division.
My army knowledge isn't so good so I'm not sure how regiment translates to division.
Regiments in the period of HOI are usually more the size of a modern battalion -- 600 to 1000 men.
They might as well let us build regiments since everything seems to be solved using the Brigade attachment solution and its getting kinda boring.
At the time no infantry unit fought without some artillery, so it might be proper to include artillery as an integral part of every infantry unit without making it a special attachment.
I can imagine some nations whos Infantry fought without artillery
eg
Most African Nations
eg
Most African Nations
But I'd consider those troops more of the "militia" type than "regular infantry". So no artillery bonus to cavalry or militia, instead to regular infantry and elite guards. I'm not all that sure what to say about colonial troops. If they are kind of French Foreign Legion, then they should have artillery.
I would hate that! In "Sumter to Apotomac" I have divisions or corps with about 3 brigades of infantry accompanied with 4 artillery brigades... They are very well suited for defensive battles.
I tend to prefer to add some artillery brigades (2) to a more offensive division or corps,
As long as you get the ability to control the amount of artillery built im happy. Just want to say that i dont like the HOI solution.
I wish that when you build a division you select each brigade it is going to consist of. So you can build a division with 3 artillery brigades, 1 tank brigade, 2 cavalry brigades and 4 infantry brigades. Then you choose how many equal divisions you want to build.
I'd rather see artillery as an independent unit than a brigade. Just like tanks, they were massed during the Great War (something like 6.000 on the German side alone in one of the battles, IIRC) and massed in lesser numbers during other conflicts (Boer War, Balkan Wars, etc. etc.)
Not everything can be solved by integrating it as a stat change or attaching it as a brigade. If the military system is anything like HOI's (as answers from Patric seem to suggest) then you can avoid the brigade attachment problem by assembling them in to larger corps.
Not everything can be solved by integrating it as a stat change or attaching it as a brigade. If the military system is anything like HOI's (as answers from Patric seem to suggest) then you can avoid the brigade attachment problem by assembling them in to larger corps.
I don't like the idea of artillery attacking alone, though, unless you give it some kind of 'bombardment factor'.
Ain't that that happend at Verdun and Somme? The artillery attacking alone, and the infantry following afterwards?
The problem with the abstraction of artillery into infantry units is that it won't be possible to mass the artillery, and then WWI won't be WWI.
It seems to me that we're talking about two types of artillery, Field and Heavy/siege.
Field Art would have to be support art for normal division, i.e. integral. While heavy/siege art IMHO would be better suited to being an independent unit. If it needs to be Divisional in size to simulate this then it should be a division.
Field Art would have to be support art for normal division, i.e. integral. While heavy/siege art IMHO would be better suited to being an independent unit. If it needs to be Divisional in size to simulate this then it should be a division.
There was an enormous growth in artillery during that periode. At first Artillery regiment were just administrative units with the individual batteries assigned to brigades or divisions.
Larger Artillery units started to appear around the American civil war with Lee creating artillery battalions of 16 guns in the ANV.
The Union had light artillery and heavy artillery regiments but they appear to have operated largely as independant batteries assigned indivudually to the infantry or cavalry brigades, except for whole units left in a fortress. Though I am not sure for the later stages of the war.
In the Prussian army each corps had a field artillery regiment which operated as a body during campaigns. In the larger battles, the artillery regiments of several corps were often grouped together resulting in concentrations of several hundred guns.
Then between 1870 and WWI artillery kept growing. Divisions recieved one or two field artillery regiments operating as one body with heavy artillery regiments at corps and army level.With trench warfare heavy and siege artillery regiments were grouped into temporary artillery divisions to support offensives usually at army level.
The allies were slower in their move to organise larger artillery formations. The British entered the war with their batteries acting individually in the old napoleonic way.
The allies tried to break the trench deadlock by piling more and always heavier guns. Artillery doctrines also showed a large evolution during WWI. The allies believed in the long artillery preparation lasting weeks before the offensive while the Germans used the hurricane barrage approach which was a short and violent barrage just before the offensive.
The techniques of the artillery barrages also evolved from the mere pounding of the enemy positions to more advanced barrages. Again I think Lee was one of Pioneers IIRC as he used an artillery barrage to isolate seminary ridge and prevent reinforcements from coming.
In WWI those were refined Creeping barrage, boxing barrages gas bombardments........ The development of communication and observation techniques telephone, radios, aircraft, also hade a great effect.
To represent that in game field guns should be factored out in the divisions like in HOI with technical advances and doctrines improving the stats of the units. In addition to that there should be independant artillery units representing siege trains wich should be very expensive an slow moving.
Then around the technological of WWI and the advent of Trench warfare heavy artillery units should become available
Larger Artillery units started to appear around the American civil war with Lee creating artillery battalions of 16 guns in the ANV.
The Union had light artillery and heavy artillery regiments but they appear to have operated largely as independant batteries assigned indivudually to the infantry or cavalry brigades, except for whole units left in a fortress. Though I am not sure for the later stages of the war.
In the Prussian army each corps had a field artillery regiment which operated as a body during campaigns. In the larger battles, the artillery regiments of several corps were often grouped together resulting in concentrations of several hundred guns.
Then between 1870 and WWI artillery kept growing. Divisions recieved one or two field artillery regiments operating as one body with heavy artillery regiments at corps and army level.With trench warfare heavy and siege artillery regiments were grouped into temporary artillery divisions to support offensives usually at army level.
The allies were slower in their move to organise larger artillery formations. The British entered the war with their batteries acting individually in the old napoleonic way.
The allies tried to break the trench deadlock by piling more and always heavier guns. Artillery doctrines also showed a large evolution during WWI. The allies believed in the long artillery preparation lasting weeks before the offensive while the Germans used the hurricane barrage approach which was a short and violent barrage just before the offensive.
The techniques of the artillery barrages also evolved from the mere pounding of the enemy positions to more advanced barrages. Again I think Lee was one of Pioneers IIRC as he used an artillery barrage to isolate seminary ridge and prevent reinforcements from coming.
In WWI those were refined Creeping barrage, boxing barrages gas bombardments........ The development of communication and observation techniques telephone, radios, aircraft, also hade a great effect.
To represent that in game field guns should be factored out in the divisions like in HOI with technical advances and doctrines improving the stats of the units. In addition to that there should be independant artillery units representing siege trains wich should be very expensive an slow moving.
Then around the technological of WWI and the advent of Trench warfare heavy artillery units should become available