Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why is line artillery bad?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45591 Bug Reports 15249 After Action Reports (AAR)
Attempt to summarize:

Add new game mechanic „Artillery superiority“ (AS) similar to air superiority.
  • Attacker AS gives small buff to attacker soft attack (and small debuff to defender defense ?)
  • Defender AS gives big buff to defender soft attack (and small buff to defender hard attack?) to deorg attacker fast
  • No Artillery on both sides, no buffs
  • Equal AS when both bring some gives small defender soft attack buff
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Simon_9732495 said:
Add new game mechanic „Artillery superiority“ (AS) similar to air superiority.
  • Attacker AS gives small buff to attacker soft attack (and small debuff to defender defense ?)
  • Defender AS gives big buff to defender soft attack (and small buff to defender hard attack?) to deorg attacker fast
  • No Artillery on both sides, no buffs
  • Equal AS when both bring some gives small defender soft attack buff
Click to expand...
This may be a superior solution. But modders cannot add game mechanics. How to solve by modding?
 
Simon_9732495 said:
Equal AS when both bring some gives small defender soft attack buff
Click to expand...
That's what artillery should do in its own. Basically, would be fine to leave it as is, maybe adjust amount of guns/IC costs for proper representation across all artillery lines.
Shaka of Carthage said:
This may be a superior solution. But modders cannot add game mechanics. How to solve by modding?
Click to expand...
Well, game already calculates amount of guns in battle. Can't modders do something that would debuff enemy, based on that?
 
Simon_9732495 said:
Attempt to summarize:

Add new game mechanic „Artillery superiority“ (AS) similar to air superiority.
  • Attacker AS gives small buff to attacker soft attack (and small debuff to defender defense ?)
  • Defender AS gives big buff to defender soft attack (and small buff to defender hard attack?) to deorg attacker fast
  • No Artillery on both sides, no buffs
  • Equal AS when both bring some gives small defender soft attack buff
Click to expand...
Could you create a thread on suggestions sub-forum?
 
So as it sits in this 1.10.4 game, we have MP, SP v AI, and SP v Expert AI.

1. Many feel that line artillery is not worth the production/research/organization costs.
2. What about using support artillery?
3. Does the same apply to using line or support AA?


Multi Player, Single Player, Artificial Intelligence, Antiaircraft.
 
HugsAndSnuggles said:
That's what artillery should do in its own. Basically, would be fine to leave it as is, maybe adjust amount of guns/IC costs for proper representation across all artillery lines.

Well, game already calculates amount of guns in battle. Can't modders do something that would debuff enemy, based on that?
Click to expand...
AFAIK you cant. You can add a terrain buff to the unit but not a debuff to enemy units.

One critical change to artillery would be to reduce artillery width down to 2 so that for the same combat width, artillery is better at soft attack than tanks. Removing the terrain penalties would also be a huge change, why should artillery give a penalty to attack in forests? It makes no sense. It affects the entire division by the way, as it is averaged out.
 
I love you guys, and moreover this is a game, so abstraction and simplicity are kings.

But at all of you who disagreed with my post which says that the use of divisional artillery as AT-guns was "situational and with negligible effect" I would ask a simple question:
How many of you really operated one of
1615148416390.png
and can seriously affirm that this can be effectively used against an advancing tank ?
[ pic of a FH-70 , 155mm howitzer. Probably no longer in use nowadays, I don't know, but it was, in mid 80's by the italian army ]
 
Kliwarrior said:
... that the use of divisional artillery as AT-guns was "situational and with negligible effect"
Click to expand...
I think you would agree that divisional artillery in the AT role was situational.

I'm only aware of the Soviets "training" (post-invasion) their divisional artillery to fulfil the AT role.

Generally speaking, if the infantry and tank teams are gone to the point artillery is now on the front line, the division is in dire straights.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Shaka of Carthage said:
I'm only aware of the Soviets "training" (post-invasion) their divisional artillery to fulfil the AT role.
Click to expand...
This.
The british and russian doctrine wanted to use arty as a 'back up' AT, which explains the high number of low calibre field cannons (76 mm in case of the Soviets) instead of light (100-120 mm) howitzers.
Didn't work so well, thou'. (The German backbone of anti-tank weapons were at some point captured and rechambered russian guns.)
Shaka of Carthage said:
Generally speaking, if the infantry and tank teams are gone to the point artillery is now on the front line, the division is in dire straights.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A one shot wonder... The reason why 88 mm AA was substituted by dedicated 88 mm AT later (the gun was to high etc.).
 
Kliwarrior said:
But at all of you who disagreed with my post which says that the use of divisional artillery as AT-guns was "situational and with negligible effect" I would ask a simple question:
How many of you really operated one of
View attachment 689859
and can seriously affirm that this can be effectively used against an advancing tank ?
[ pic of a FH-70 , 155mm howitzer. Probably no longer in use nowadays, I don't know, but it was, in mid 80's by the italian army ]
Click to expand...
As said, not every artillery is created equal. That's why Stalin himself call the Soviet Zis 3 76.2mm field gun the Masterpierce, much lighter than the previous gun and 3x cheaper, and some German that test all the similar guns in the world like to confirm.

 
Kliwarrior said:
I love you guys, and moreover this is a game, so abstraction and simplicity are kings.

But at all of you who disagreed with my post which says that the use of divisional artillery as AT-guns was "situational and with negligible effect" I would ask a simple question:
How many of you really operated one of
View attachment 689859
and can seriously affirm that this can be effectively used against an advancing tank ?
[ pic of a FH-70 , 155mm howitzer. Probably no longer in use nowadays, I don't know, but it was, in mid 80's by the italian army ]
Click to expand...

I have, and obviously the FH-70 is too big and cumbersome to be an effective anti-tank device. It is also twice the weight and size of most WW2 howitzers of similar calibre. For example the russian D-30 makes for a much better direct fire weapon. However direct fire is not the main way artillery in ww2 (or now) is used against armored formations.

An artillery strike can and will damage and mission-kill armored concentrations in assembly areas and forming up points. Also during attack a proper defensive barrage will disrupt or break up armored attacks. Or it will separate the infantry from the armor and as we all know, armor without infantry protection is a short lived proposition in most battles

As for indirect fire effects vs. armor, see here -> https://documents.pub/document/who-says-dumb-artillery-rounds-cant-kill-armor.html
Just to address some counterpoints:
1. Rounds used in those tests were M107 high explosive rounds, which were in service also in WW2.
2. Targets in those tests were obviously more heavily armored than most ww2 tanks.
3. Proper artillery concentrations could be achieved in ww2 as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back