i miss the good ole longbow/pike spam in ck2, it was almost criminal, nothing could beat it.
WWW: The German player does not use artillery
- Thread starter alkomon
- Start date
-
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.
i miss the good ole longbow/pike spam in ck2, it was almost criminal, nothing could beat it.
i thought it was a good example i didnt play much ck 2
well eu 4 then all units for all factions have the same !base! combat modifiers i think atleast - 1
I won't argue any more, because I already made my point.
I will only answer to only one of your points, because I feel like I have to.
Anyways I edited my post about saying "nobody said" to something different, because I realised that could be misunderstood as well.
I will only answer to only one of your points, because I feel like I have to.
This is why I think you didn't read my posts before. You quoted only one of my many examples given about the choices. I won't search and copy any of them because you can find them if you're interested, all I'm saying that arguing that my point about choices being binary was quite misleading.
Anyways I edited my post about saying "nobody said" to something different, because I realised that could be misunderstood as well.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- 2
i thought it was a good example i didnt play much ck 2
dude, there were glorious times to be had in ck2 with a good composition of longbows/pikes, they were ruthless, during the firing phase your wipe out nearly all there army, if you didn't, the english bonus would give you tit for tat during the melee phase (one for one loss wise) then when the new firing phase begun the massacre would resume, it was the cheapest and most deadliest army composition/retinue in ck2 with extremely high kill ratio. MP games resulted in everyone taking english culture due to this OP army composition. Alas they have changed retinue quite a bit since, and it's extremely more difficult/expensive to get the right composition although it still works.
Even in EU4 (& victoria2 to some degree), artillery is extremely important, to the point you end up fielding one artillery division(brigade/regiment whatever) per infantry division, due to the fact they are support and would allow you to kill stacks extremely quickly from the backrow. EU4 army compostion mid game should be nearly half infantry, half artillery or near enough. You could spam infantry and perhaps even win, but your losses would be terrible, if you like spending 10 years of building up manpower again.
Last edited:
- 2
HOI always feel in a silly zone because it never placed mortars in the right place, and there was no thing like heavy or light artillery. It was artillery and you WILL eat it! Open mouth nom nom nom hmmm yes more ART in my divisions please
Infantry with good artillery should beat infantry of the same level without it, specially on the defensive. If they don´t the game is broken, simple as that.
While mortars could and should be handled by research, artillery should have more options.
Infantry with good artillery should beat infantry of the same level without it, specially on the defensive. If they don´t the game is broken, simple as that.
While mortars could and should be handled by research, artillery should have more options.
- 7
I'm arguing that divisions without artillery brigades should be viable as long as artillery is included in the army those divisions are fighting in. So an army without any artillery or similar fire support brigades eg. rocket artillery or perhaps CAS has a negative impact on the success of the players campaign no matter what play style he or she is using or what designs he or she prefers to use, for the purpose of maintaining a fair amount of historical accuracy.
Bottom line: A zero artillery play style should be heavily punished to ensure historical plausibility of the gameplay aspect of HoI4, period.
p.s I read your posts.
Last edited:
- 8
I can see scenarios where dumping the Arty will work even after balance, but aren't we really arguing something that they said would be fixed?
It's obvious from the WWWs that the devs know there are some issues being worked on, and that both sides have exploited those issues - everything from the underpowered artillery to being able to invade through enemy controlled straits. If they do another WWW, or even later in this one as the development build keeps on changing (totally messing up the gearing bonuses practically every week, lol) I'm sure that some of these issues are going to be addressed and the combatants won't be able to do the things they currently do. Da9iel might be looking for that arty that he sent off if they change the artillery before the WWW comes to an end. If he doesn't, then Johan's invasions will suddenly have an awful lot more traction if they have inf with arty included.
That being said - Remember when Da9iel attacked the Soviets, he was trying to get through a winter at the start, against an army decimated by the Trotskyites, further decimated by the gearing issues with the restarts of the engine, etc. If he could save supplies and keep his army moving through the winter and then take advantage by re-adding the artillery, etc. in better weather if needed, I might be tempted if I knew that the Russian Bear was more of a Russian Teddy. The Russians folded rather quickly under those circumstances - I'm not so sure that he would have done just as he did had the Russians been more to strength and org.
But again, they're playing on an incomplete version of the game that is constantly being updated, and both sides apparently know what the weak spots are and are exploiting them to their full extent. At least it's good to know that they know that these are weaknesses in the game, and these weaknesses are being worked on.
It's obvious from the WWWs that the devs know there are some issues being worked on, and that both sides have exploited those issues - everything from the underpowered artillery to being able to invade through enemy controlled straits. If they do another WWW, or even later in this one as the development build keeps on changing (totally messing up the gearing bonuses practically every week, lol) I'm sure that some of these issues are going to be addressed and the combatants won't be able to do the things they currently do. Da9iel might be looking for that arty that he sent off if they change the artillery before the WWW comes to an end. If he doesn't, then Johan's invasions will suddenly have an awful lot more traction if they have inf with arty included.
That being said - Remember when Da9iel attacked the Soviets, he was trying to get through a winter at the start, against an army decimated by the Trotskyites, further decimated by the gearing issues with the restarts of the engine, etc. If he could save supplies and keep his army moving through the winter and then take advantage by re-adding the artillery, etc. in better weather if needed, I might be tempted if I knew that the Russian Bear was more of a Russian Teddy. The Russians folded rather quickly under those circumstances - I'm not so sure that he would have done just as he did had the Russians been more to strength and org.
But again, they're playing on an incomplete version of the game that is constantly being updated, and both sides apparently know what the weak spots are and are exploiting them to their full extent. At least it's good to know that they know that these are weaknesses in the game, and these weaknesses are being worked on.
- 6
- 1
"So I guess that means I don't have to build Infantry"
He was simply stating what he had read from Johan, and thought was relevant. This is not gospel or canon. You are arguing against an argument and ignoring the point.
The REAL point is that Daniel did NOT build lots of Infantry divisions with no artillery. He jumped into the game where Jacob had (screwed-up?) failed to build artillery in time for the war. I do believe this was a mistake instead of a strategic choice.
Because Daniel is an AMAZING clicker and because German land doctrines had been tech-rushed up to the hilt and because there were enough infantry (under-armed and many lacking in training), he was able to "click" his way to victory.
The WWW had nothing to do with the utter distortion of artillery being made irrelevant in the game. There is no issue here besides balance and a warning to those who think that they'll be able to run the game at a constant 'speed 4' without pausing and be able to build their perfect army/navy/airforce.
He was simply stating what he had read from Johan, and thought was relevant. This is not gospel or canon. You are arguing against an argument and ignoring the point.
The REAL point is that Daniel did NOT build lots of Infantry divisions with no artillery. He jumped into the game where Jacob had (screwed-up?) failed to build artillery in time for the war. I do believe this was a mistake instead of a strategic choice.
Because Daniel is an AMAZING clicker and because German land doctrines had been tech-rushed up to the hilt and because there were enough infantry (under-armed and many lacking in training), he was able to "click" his way to victory.
The WWW had nothing to do with the utter distortion of artillery being made irrelevant in the game. There is no issue here besides balance and a warning to those who think that they'll be able to run the game at a constant 'speed 4' without pausing and be able to build their perfect army/navy/airforce.
Or another theory, in the (competitive / fun) multiplayer games that Pdox devs had already been playing, the power players had already concluded ( in the builds they were playing) that Art was sub-optimal and crap.
- 1
Depending on your definition of 'winning' this could be viable. If you play as the USA you can afford to have little to no army with a defensive navy to stop any invasions. Then, spend all your political points and industry on trade, diplomacy, and funding revolutions.
But the German divisions DO have artillery, infantry equipment includes small and medium calibre artillery and mortars, what the German player doesn`t use is proper heavy artillery.
- 3
- 1
Perhaps Daniel is using close support planes as artillery for softening up enemy fortified positions ahead of attacks - which is what the Germans really did. Afaik Stukas played the part of supporting artillery, at least early on it the war, because the German army wasnt very motorised at that point and still relied heavily on horses.
Dont know whether this is what Daniel is doing, he does things so quickly its all just a blur.
Dont know whether this is what Daniel is doing, he does things so quickly its all just a blur.
- 3
I don't see anything wrong with using infantry only builds with no heavy artillery.
They can be used to hold ground in areas of your front where terrain is unfavourable and you are prepared to give ground.
Focus can then be placed on the centre of gravity for your battle plan where you can use heavy artillery, armour or if you have local air superiority for a breakthrough CAS or TAC in the ground attack role.
In fact if you have enough ground attack aircraft and fighters to cover them you could use an all infantry front for an elastic defence, as its highly unlikely the enemy will be attacking everywhere at once, thus allowing you to focus ground attack on the active battles, giving ground where you can't support it and taking it where you can.
The faster movement of only infantry builds, compared to those with heavy arty in areas like mountains, forests, marsh and hills could also allow for elastic defence in order to pull them forward then fast movement round the flanks to encircle them.
Also heavy arty in HOI3 was very vulnerable to ground attack, I don't know how this will translate to HOI4.
I think only if you are going to let the AI do all the work, where it will just continue to slog its way forward without using the kind of encircling micro management that Daniel has, would it be necessary to add heavy arty to all your divisions.
They can be used to hold ground in areas of your front where terrain is unfavourable and you are prepared to give ground.
Focus can then be placed on the centre of gravity for your battle plan where you can use heavy artillery, armour or if you have local air superiority for a breakthrough CAS or TAC in the ground attack role.
In fact if you have enough ground attack aircraft and fighters to cover them you could use an all infantry front for an elastic defence, as its highly unlikely the enemy will be attacking everywhere at once, thus allowing you to focus ground attack on the active battles, giving ground where you can't support it and taking it where you can.
The faster movement of only infantry builds, compared to those with heavy arty in areas like mountains, forests, marsh and hills could also allow for elastic defence in order to pull them forward then fast movement round the flanks to encircle them.
Also heavy arty in HOI3 was very vulnerable to ground attack, I don't know how this will translate to HOI4.
I think only if you are going to let the AI do all the work, where it will just continue to slog its way forward without using the kind of encircling micro management that Daniel has, would it be necessary to add heavy arty to all your divisions.
Last edited:
I didn't see Da9l building much in the way of CAS (or a huge amount of fighters, although he built a decent amount), so I'm not sure how much capacity he would have had for doing that.
It's potentially possible
. I have no doubt some people will work the game to come up with something like this, but I'd be a little disappointed if the US could effectively win everyone over with PP alone on normal difficulty without some serious cheesing - it'd mean the challenge level of the game wouldn't be that high.
To do what? Playing balanced? Not exploiting the system? The best beta testers are powergamers (as Daniel seems to be) because they find all the system flaws and exploits, so they can be fixed. I am happy Daniel choose to "game the system" (everybody should be trying to "game the system" at this stage). That way it can be fixed before launch.
- 5
I believe that the problem many people (including me) have with Daniel's approach on infantry, be it succesful or not against a strong SU, is:
He used his infantry without artillery not in some special cases where it may be appropiate (e.g. against tanks or unfavorable terrain) but against massed low-lvl SU infantry. When, for crying out loud, if not there should artillery be effective? He did not even fielded a lot of other fire support. Since he also stated that this build without artillery is better than the one with, I have every reason to believe (+ they said it explicitely) that this will be changed and Zakus opinion* is not shared in PDS.
*Which I understood this way:"Not building artillery should not make a huge difference, my divisions should perform just as well."
Now while I believe that this is true in some cases; where artillery is not very useful; it certainly can not be the case in the scenario we saw in WWW and I described above.
Completely omitting an asset you have should be punished, regardeless of historical accuracy (build provincial AA instead of fighters as Germany or Britain... it is an option, yes. But does it have to be equally effective as building some?!)
To sum it up: Artillery should be a native choice for infantry divisions fighting other infantry. Not the only one but the best for this case. You may want to use other devisions/templates to fight tanks, right?
He used his infantry without artillery not in some special cases where it may be appropiate (e.g. against tanks or unfavorable terrain) but against massed low-lvl SU infantry. When, for crying out loud, if not there should artillery be effective? He did not even fielded a lot of other fire support. Since he also stated that this build without artillery is better than the one with, I have every reason to believe (+ they said it explicitely) that this will be changed and Zakus opinion* is not shared in PDS.
*Which I understood this way:"Not building artillery should not make a huge difference, my divisions should perform just as well."
Now while I believe that this is true in some cases; where artillery is not very useful; it certainly can not be the case in the scenario we saw in WWW and I described above.
Completely omitting an asset you have should be punished, regardeless of historical accuracy (build provincial AA instead of fighters as Germany or Britain... it is an option, yes. But does it have to be equally effective as building some?!)
To sum it up: Artillery should be a native choice for infantry divisions fighting other infantry. Not the only one but the best for this case. You may want to use other devisions/templates to fight tanks, right?
- 8
- 1