WWW: The German player does not use artillery

[Praetori]

this.

In BICE arty has really really poor stats (1 or 2 soft attack, something like that), but it greatly improve the terrain bonus. i think this is the most effective way to represent arty in game.

I did like BICE representation but only for the defense, proper use of artillery forces attacking units to use terrain they rather wouldn't. But artillery WAS useful IRL even on the offensive but not by making terrain easier to negotiate.

 

[Acaios]

well, a good artillery support CAN negate certain terrain bonus: a small forest can give you a good cover from direct fire, but with artillery you can just blast it away and the send in the troops.
Ofc it cannot make tanks swim.
I think it was pretty well balanced in bice: it was absolutely necessary in urban fights or vs heavy fortifications, but less and less effective fighting in harsher environments.

 

[Praetori]

well, a good artillery support CAN negate certain terrain bonus: a small forest can give you a good cover from direct fire, but with artillery you can just blast it away and the send in the troops.
Ofc it cannot make tanks swim.
I think it was pretty well balanced in bice: it was absolutely necessary in urban fights or vs heavy fortifications, but less and less effective fighting in harsher environments.

Indirect artillery support in urban environment of the time as mostly rear line disruption firemissions since fire support was (and is) bloody dangerous with the mixed frontlines and short distances of separation that are often the fact in urban combat. On the other hand it was not that uncommon with even large calibre guns being rolled up to the very front to act in direct fire missions at very short ranges in urban combat (but then the losses/attrition should skyrocket for arty as well in urban environments).

Offensive use of artillery in relation to terrain is usually of two distinctive kinds. Either rolling barrages in the direction of the assault in order to directly disrupt the enemy in the main path of the attack or flanking fire to deny or suppress the enemy at certain places in order to isolate the defenders in the path of the assault. The hill dominating the terrain to the west might not be a goal for the attack but you still light it up with concentrated barrages so so it can't be used by the defenders to interfere with the main thrust. It's hard to translate either to lowering the attackers terrain penalties though (it makes perfect sense for the defender to get that bonus tho).

 

[dadiman260]

Indirect artillery support in urban environment of the time as mostly rear line disruption firemissions since fire support was (and is) bloody dangerous with the mixed frontlines and short distances of separation that are often the fact in urban combat. On the other hand it was not that uncommon with even large calibre guns being rolled up to the very front to act in direct fire missions at very short ranges in urban combat (but then the losses/attrition should skyrocket for arty as well in urban environments).

Offensive use of artillery in relation to terrain is usually of two distinctive kinds. Either rolling barrages in the direction of the assault in order to directly disrupt the enemy in the main path of the attack or flanking fire to deny or suppress the enemy at certain places in order to isolate the defenders in the path of the assault. The hill dominating the terrain to the west might not be a goal for the attack but you still light it up with concentrated barrages so so it can't be used by the defenders to interfere with the main thrust. It's hard to translate either to lowering the attackers terrain penalties though (it makes perfect sense for the defender to get that bonus tho).

This is why they won because they had a concentrated force they knew how to use when i was talking about bliz what i ment was that they had cas and tank devisions and they knew how to use them i was not talking about blitz tactics, my point was that allies forces in early war were completely outmatched because they were still useing ww1 "tanks support infantry mentallity" while germany's faster but inferior tanks would just make fools out of them

 

[Imaginary Star]

Now there is some support for this point of view (using fixed or rotary wing {helicopters} aircraft as mobile artillery/anit-armor). The problem with that for HOI4 is that the communications technology that allows Forward Air Support personnel (in US forces these are Air Force guys that ground pound with the army and either call in or laser designate targets) did not exist in WWII. The ability to coordinate like infantry did with their artillery just was not there.

That very well may be. But we looking too closely - the virtue of HoI is in allowing us to be overall commanders of the whole war effort, not the men on the ground. It is not meant to be ruthlessly faithful in details, but to be convincing in the overall picture.
During the war many unexpected technical and operational breakthroughs were made, to say that some low tech solution could not have been possibly found is surely an exaggeration. Even if it was truly impossible, I would be willing to make certain abstractions and accept such inaccuracies for the sake of a more diverse and interesting gameplay.

 

[teamgene]

Wrong. 3 out 4 casulties came form this that explode . like grenades, bombs from planes, motars, artillery, tanks etc. But not only artillery.

True, it is shrapnel by any means. Since the vast majority of casualties happen within the first 10-20 seconds of combat, again the focus on artillery. In WW2 and Korea, US numbers stayed rather consistant at about 60% wounds and 50+% deaths(51% WW2 59% Korea). In Vietnam the wound percentage remained about the same, but deaths dropped to around 36%. Which was more a small arms war.