It seems strange that artillery takes up combat width.

[Finski]

Combat width has been described as the capability to field a certain number of front-line troops without said troops getting in each others way. In the latest WWW it was revealed that artillery takes up 3 combat width, while infantry takes 1 or 2 (can't remember). It seems very strange that artillery is said to be getting in the way of front-line troops AT ALL, never mind considerably in excess of how much an infantry unit would. Artillery would generally be located 5+ kms behind the front-line and should not impede the units' movement and combat capability at the front.

 

[Mac Lazer]

Good point. I hadn't thought about it before now, but it makes a lot of sense. Unless there's something I'm missing..?

 

[testname1]

This would make some sense for "transporting" artillery, as it would require a lot of logistical difficulty in doing so versus troops alone.

Though for actual combat, it seems a bit odd. Perhaps it is for balance reasons, as massed artillery might be too strong if you can easily put the force on a single point?

Also, there is a point where having more artillery doesn't seem like it would be all that useful - you can only bombard targets in war as fast as you spot them after all, so it should be limited somewhat by what intelligence you have (in this case, front-line troops). Granted, this might be invalidated by later-game firepower (not to mention the concept of nukes), but I could see that being a potential explanation as well.

 

[Dreadlord]

I think its for game balancing, afaik artillery as support unit does not give front width but when you add it as combat unit artillery gives much more soft attack.

P.S I just checked last WWW, this is indeed the case. Artillery as Support Unit does not give front width but only gives 16 soft attack at the cost of 24 art equipment, while adding it as a single Combat Unit gives 37.5 soft attack at the cost of 36 art equipment & 3 front width

 

[Milarazor]

Maybe you could explain it with heavy artillery forcing your units out of the way not to get shelled by friendly fire because of its inacuraccy and firing over longer distances? You wouldnt have an as concentrated infantry force in an area you're shelling with artillery. Support artillery could represent such things as mortars and small caliber guns carried by the fighting forces themselves.

 

[safe-keeper]

Depends on whether it's direct fire or indirect-fire artillery. Direct-fire should definitely take up combat width, indirect fire I'm less sure about. I suppose it's for balance, as others have said, to prevent a player from just massing artillery?

In EU4, artillery seemed to always be positioned on the second line, maybe this could be possible for a HOI4 patch or DLC, too, to have a kind of "second combat width" for support units like indirect artillery?

 

[Kozer]

I'm just going to toss out the answer that they did it for game balance.

 

[Gort11]

How is combat width calculated in HoI4 exactly? Anyone know?

 

[CharlieFox]

I agree. Also I don't undertand why adding artillery lowers the organization of your division... Shouldn't organization only depend on your front line troops (i.e infantry , motorized, armor)?

 

[Gort11]

I agree. Also I don't undertand why adding artillery lowers the organization of your division... Shouldn't organization only depend on your front line troops (i.e infantry , motorized, armor)?

Well, it kinda does - every other kind of front-line battalion we have the stats for adds organisation to the division.

I guess maybe to reflect the fact that artillery is very powerful compared to infantry (37.5 soft attack compared to 6) but can't continue firing for long periods, thus lowering the amount of time the division can spend in combat?

Or maybe to represent the logistical difficulties of lugging a bunch of honking great cannons around?

 

[Midden]

From Hoi 3 we are used to Artillery having Zero combat width. The new way appears strange.
So far the WWW have shown us that you start the game 1936 with basic Inf only Division templates. If you start a war early Zerg rushing Inf and producing mainly Inf weapons is the effective way to win. Once you are at war it seems from the WWW, quite "problematic / Inefficient to start to add ART / AT etc to your templates, as your production seems always short of inf weapons, and no factories left to make ART etc (as shown in WWW's so far).
I don't think we have seen combined arms divisions in action in the WWW's, I don't know how much beta or play testing has been done on combined arms divisions?

Thus all the interaction effects of more complex divisions org, stats and combat width are a mystery to me. Maybe it all works well.

 

[tommylotto]

It looks like a mess to me. There is no combined arms bonus. So, divisions are just blobs of infantry or blobs of tanks. A division made up of tanks, infantry and artillery would be wildly inefficient. I think we should order up some red hats for Paradox that say -- MAKE ARTILLERY GREAT AGAIN.

 

[albso437]

There is no combined arms bonus.

Have this been confirmed by the Devs? Or how do we know that?

 

[Bap]

Also I don't undertand why adding artillery lowers the organization of your division...

Artillery now has 0 org. When added to a division and averaged by the number of brigades organization only "appears" to get lower.
This is also new from HOI3: brigades with no org. Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Lither]

It's simple
If artillery is effective behind the front line, artillery is super effective on the front line

 

[Lifthrasil]

I agree. Also I don't undertand why adding artillery lowers the organization of your division... Shouldn't organization only depend on your front line troops (i.e infantry , motorized, armor)?

I guess ORG also means capability to maintain a solid frontline. Having artillery might mean you need to put some INF to defend the artillery from counter attacks?

But the most probable answer is just: game balance.
Although I guess that ART has significant less ORG than INF, so adding ART lowers your average ORG value.
Also a division made solely of ART could be killed off by a few commando squads in close combat.

 

[TheOrangeGuy]

Have this been confirmed by the Devs? Or how do we know that?

I remember that as well, from podcat, can be wrong though

 

[NapoleonComple]

I feel like artillery should be expensive, slow units down a lot and have other drawbacks rather than take up combat width. Historically that was the point of artillery; it allowed you to inflict a lot of deaths and injuries upon the enemy from a long way a way and shatter enemy defensive positions without having to throw yourself on to machine gun positions. However, artillery was extremely expensive and required a constant supply of ammunition, and was murder to move forward at any rate, at least until the self-propelled/truck towed stuff came along. I feel like slower speed and expense to maintain should be artillery's drawback, not width. Without adequate artillery or tanks, you're basically back at 1914 trench warfare.

 

[Denkt]

Artillery is expensive in HOI4. An artillery battalion cost about the same as 3-4 infantry battalions, not as much as tank battalion who can cost more then a infantry division. Its firepower/width is 12.5 compared to infantry's 3 but it don't have as good ability to hold ground as infantry.

Removing width may unbalance the game and it is not like artillery width will stop their useage then they offers more then 4 times the firepower of infantry.

Artillery increase org of the division. But as the org value shown is the average it may look like it reduce org but org damage is divided by the number of divisions so as long it add some org it increase your divisions org.

 

[tommylotto]

I assume that Paradox will balance the frontage and organization issues appropriately, but I am concerned by the lack of combined arms bonus and the idea that artillery is an option. Every division should require artillery. I challenge you to find a major combatant that fielded a division that didn't have a regiment of artillery. (You might be able to find some, but in looking you will see my point.). Divisions need artillery. It is way more important than tanks, just not as sexy.

We should have light (~75mm), medium (~105mm) and heavy (~155mm) artillery -- with heavy artillery costing more but providing more firepower than light artillery. It should come in 12 gun increments, and most divisions should have a regiment of 3 artillery battalions for 36 guns. With a system like this you would take better advantage of the division designer based upon battalions and be able to account for the historical discrepancy in firepower between nations' divisions. For example, a German or an American infantry division could have an artillery regiment made up of 3 medium battalions and a heavy battalion, whereas an Italian division would only have 2 lights and a medium. The Italian division would be much cheaper to keep equipped but carry much less boom.