WWW: The German player does not use artillery

[Ynen]

I think Kalauer makes a valid point here.

Most people here are arguing if arty should be strong or not. While I do agree that artillery certainly should have a sizeable impact on combat, it totally depends what you are up against. If you are fighting infantry, then yes, you should completely destroy them if they do not have artillery themselves. Against tanks, however, you should be punished if artillery is the only thing that you brought to the battlefield. And if the enemy has a lot of air power, I would like to see you shoot those planes with your artillery shells.

My main point is that artillery should be strong against infantry in certain terrain, to a point where it should be a must-have. But certainly not against all types of enemies and in all kinds of terrain.

 

[kalauer]

If you are fighting infantry, then yes, you should completely destroy them if they do not have artillery themselves. Against tanks, however, you should be punished

This is mainly modeled using "softness" of targets (are there other mechanics?). Someone here said artillery does a lot of soft attack, so I guess there is something else wrong with artillery; maybe Org is overrrated at the moment.

Now what happened in WWW is, that 4 Inf was superior (according to Daniel) to 3 Inf+Art. Period. No condidtions. So what causes that?

 

[Ynen]

If 4 inf beats 3inf+1art on normal terrain and similar tech, then I do agree that the game is broken atm.

 

[kalauer]

If 4 inf beats 3inf+1art on normal terrain and similar tech, then I do agree that the game is broken atm.

He did not say that exactly. What he did was replace his Art with Inf saying this is better right now.

Or similar. He did not put them against each other. Just to be correct.

 

[phantomrider]

My concern in this debate is that success of an army without including artillery in this game PROBABLY means the combat system used is broken. Yes, there are situations where artillery could totally impede the mobility of an infantry formation (some jungles and mountain terrain for example) such that the infantry would be better off alone. However, the Soviet Union is not totally jungle (marsh) or mountain. Military success in the 20th century (and before) where the game is supposedly set was based on combined arms (usually thought of as infantry, artillery, armor in that era) with a lot of force modifiers as well (plus in WWII air ground). If the German army without artillery (which actually was one of their strengths) can beat the Soviets (who I guess had artillery) then the combat simulation is "broke" or so unrealistic that it would impair at least my interest in playing a historical simulation game.
The other concern is the ease at which the Germans take out the Russians may mean the Germans are way overpowered (Russians underpowered??) so play balance is a major concern. (This has been a problem in the HOI series) I would hope that even playing the 1936 start that as a German player playing sort of historical to get to a situation in 1942 in many games where Germany is overextended an unable to keep knocking off her enemies one by one so that there really is a concern about "losing" or at least being put on the defensive by the combined allies and Soviet forces.

 

[amalric de g.]

He did not say that exactly. What he did was replace his Art with Inf saying this is better right now.

Or similar. He did not put them against each other. Just to be correct.

Daniel didn´t replace the arty with inf. He cut out the arty from the template, because the arty lowered the org of his Divisions, without the arty the inf Div could fight longer and he beat the russians because he could push continuessly onwards with his higher org Divisions.

And he had allready inf weapons II and the russians had inf weapons I.

 

[Nats]

It would be very useful to hear from Daniel as to why his troops have had quite quick progression to date - for example

- is he using lots of close combat planes to soften up the Russians first?
- did the AI fail to dig in properly and once on the retreat is the AI incapable of mounting a decent rear defensive position as the Russians did around Stalingrad?
- are his troops particularly well trained in assault and breakthrough?

I assume its just an AI issue that is still being testing and revised myself. I would guess it will be ages before the AI is capable of producing a decent defense or attack strategy when faced with a reasonably capable human opponent, never mind a programmer who knows ways to get around his own programming!

 

[kalauer]

Daniel didn´t replace the arty with inf. He cut out the arty from the template, because the arty lowered the org of his Divisions, without the arty the inf Div could fight longer and he beat the russians because he could push continuessly onwards with his higher org Divisions.

And he had allready inf weapons II and the russians had inf weapons I.

Then I recalled that wrong. But the bit about the Org is interesting. My intepretation would be that the artillery does more harm to the own Org just by being there than to the others by firing at them? Well, that is a balancing issue if i ever saw one.

edit: It is in the 5th WWW at 5:50: Artillery support company hits org with -5.1 (amount of three Inf), while adding 17.6 soft attack (less than 3*Inf).

 

[Kovax]

If an ART brigade is equally effective as an INF brigade, then the high IC and supply cost of the ART makes it a "no brainer" to just use another INF in its place. The ART has to be significantly more effective in most circumstances to justify using it despite those drawbacks. Throw in an ORG hit for using it, and the developers have a "no brainer" decision: skip the ART. Obviously, they already recognize the problem, and one would seriously hope there's some plan to do something about it.

Meanwhile, arguing over whether it should be a viable option to skip artillery misses the other point, which has serious implications for overall game balance in other situations: Germany has a shortage of a resource essential for building ART, so it becomes even more expensive for GER than for a lot of other countries to build. If GER faces a 20% gearing penalty due to lack of Tungsten or some other commodity, while the UK and Soviets don't, then ART has to be at least 20% more "efficient" for Germany than INF, which then makes it a total "no brainer" for the UK and SU to build ART. The proper "build" for an army has to reflect the availability of resources, and building an army that doesn't tailor itself to those resources will result in either a smaller army or a chronic shortage of certain equipment. It may pay for the UK to build ART in the current beta state of the game, but not for Germany; Daniel seems to have been exploring that possibility. With other resources being available or not, various countries could end up with seriously ahistorical (and militarily absurd) division designs as "optimal", which I see as a powergamer's dream and a historical player's worst nightmare.

 

[Ynen]

Made me recall one of the COD black ops games. At some point they are talking about drones and the old man says 'Seriously guys, you are going to build an entire military based on and element that is controlled by China?'. Its basically the same here. If germany doesn't have tungsten it shouldnt build units based on tungsten, as it cant replace those units during the war.

 

[fabius]

I think Kalauer makes a valid point here.

Most people here are arguing if arty should be strong or not. While I do agree that artillery certainly should have a sizeable impact on combat, it totally depends what you are up against. If you are fighting infantry, then yes, you should completely destroy them if they do not have artillery themselves.

My main point is that artillery should be strong against infantry in certain terrain, to a point where it should be a must-have. But certainly not against all types of enemies and in all kinds of terrain.

If 4 inf beats 3inf+1art on normal terrain and similar tech, then I do agree that the game is broken atm.

Agreed and agreed. But let's not forget fully entrenched infantry should be well protected.

 

[Animum24]

My concern in this debate is that success of an army without including artillery in this game PROBABLY means the combat system used is broken. Yes, there are situations where artillery could totally impede the mobility of an infantry formation (some jungles and mountain terrain for example) such that the infantry would be better off alone. However, the Soviet Union is not totally jungle (marsh) or mountain. Military success in the 20th century (and before) where the game is supposedly set was based on combined arms (usually thought of as infantry, artillery, armor in that era) with a lot of force modifiers as well (plus in WWII air ground). If the German army without artillery (which actually was one of their strengths) can beat the Soviets (who I guess had artillery) then the combat simulation is "broke" or so unrealistic that it would impair at least my interest in playing a historical simulation game.
The other concern is the ease at which the Germans take out the Russians may mean the Germans are way overpowered (Russians underpowered??) so play balance is a major concern. (This has been a problem in the HOI series) I would hope that even playing the 1936 start that as a German player playing sort of historical to get to a situation in 1942 in many games where Germany is overextended an unable to keep knocking off her enemies one by one so that there really is a concern about "losing" or at least being put on the defensive by the combined allies and Soviet forces.

I wouldn't be concerned. The game is in beta and very imbalanced. On top of that, as the players have stated, the SU is weak because of a coup and other factors which under historical circumstances would be different.

 

[No idea]

Daniel is a programmer I believe.

Yes, I know he is not a normal beta tester, but a qualified one. Altough I am sure he does more things apart from beta testing HoI.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Made me recall one of the COD black ops games. At some point they are talking about drones and the old man says 'Seriously guys, you are going to build an entire military based on and element that is controlled by China?'. Its basically the same here. If germany doesn't have tungsten it shouldnt build units based on tungsten, as it cant replace those units during the war.

If the game mechanics are such that it doesn't make sense for Germany to build much artillery, that is a problem with the game. Because in the real world, they did build a lot of artillery and it made sense for them to do so.

 

[Kovax]

Yes, Germany built a "lot" of artillery, roughly equivalent or slightly superior to their contemporaries, until the Soviets and Americans skewed the numbers completely by cranking out unheard of numbers of heavy guns later in the war. Germany needs to be able to build "more-or-less historical" divisions, and have them function as well or better than a variety of crazy compositions. The heavy reliance on a particular resource for a particular type of unit or equipment concerns me, because a 50% reduction in efficiency at producing a particular item means that it really doesn't pay to build it unless it's twice as effective as the alternative.

Balancing this is going to be difficult, but may be achievable using Combined Arms bonuses, different terrain modifiers for different types of brigades, and various other tools to do things like making particular units or equipment "winners" in specific conditions, but not important in other circumstances. Getting the balance of costs versus benefits right both historically and for gameplay is essential, not just for Germany, but for the Soviets, UK, and everyone else, so it doesn't benefit you to run some wacky mix of oddball brigades (like MIL+3xART or HARM+3xAC in HOI3), while still allowing enough flexibility to allow for a range of "credible" variations.

 

[kalauer]

If an ART brigade is equally effective as an INF brigade.

I may have caused some misintepretation: There was no replacement of brigades; Daniel just removed an artillery support company. This Support Company reduced Organisation b 5.1 while doing some good soft attack. See at WWW#5, around 5:50.

So the state of Play is: Infantry only Division is better than the same Division+artillery Support Company. (At least according to Daniel; we have no proof besides that. But well, I believe him until I tested myself ).

 

[dsteve3]

I may have caused some misintepretation: There was no replacement of brigades; Daniel just removed an artillery support company. This Support Company reduced Organisation b 5.1 while doing some good soft attack. See at WWW#5, around 5:50.

So the state of Play is: Infantry only Division is better than the same Division+artillery Support Company. (At least according to Daniel; we have no proof besides that. But well, I believe him until I tested myself ).

But wasn't that because Jacob hadn't properly levelled-up his artillery techs? Its not like they intentionally designed the game to ensure that artillery would be a detriment if used.

 

[bkuepers]

If 4 inf beats 3inf+1art on normal terrain and similar tech, then I do agree that the game is broken atm.

There are a lot of variables here in including tech/terrain/entrenchment that can increase and decrease their effectiveness. I'm confident it will be balanced enough to allow some options based on where you are fighting, who/what you are fighting and how much supply you can support. Lets see how the balance turns out.

I do agree Germany shouldn't have been able to roll over the soviets with just infantry though in the plains of Russia. Hopefully the AI is a bit better at layered defense in this version.

 

[Surimi]

So the state of Play is: Infantry only Division is better than the same Division+artillery Support Company. (At least according to Daniel; we have no proof besides that. But well, I believe him until I tested myself ).

He made it clear though that the reason for this is that he was trying to maximize organization, so this may not be generally true but rather one particular min-maxing strategy suitable for those countries whose doctrines already favour organization (as I believe the German doctrine does).

As I understand it, artillery adds soft attack but also slightly reduces organization. Daniel felt that he had enough soft attack in his infantry units already. It seems his priority was to get anti-tank guns (which presumably add hard attack at the expense of organization).

Honestly, if any support company is a complete no brainer to use in all situations irrespective of overall tactics or particular needs, that strikes me as a problem from a game standpoint.

From a realism standpoint, I think we can assume that smaller artillery (like mortars) are contained within the basic infantry equipment (depending on tech level) so it isn't necessarily the case that not having an artillery company means absolutely no artillery.

I do agree Germany shouldn't have been able to roll over the soviets with just infantry though in the plains of Russia. Hopefully the AI is a bit better at layered defense in this version.

The problem is not simply AI, but also that the alpha build in the first WWW contained a bug which caused Russia to be overtaken (ahistorically) by Trotskyites when it wasn't supposed to, which apparently had a devastating impact on industrial production. Daniel did point out at one point that he could outproduce the Soviets several times over.

 

[phantomrider]

He made it clear though that the reason for this is that he was trying to maximize organization, so this may not be generally true but rather one particular min-maxing strategy suitable for those countries whose doctrines already favour organization (as I believe the German doctrine does).

As I understand it, artillery adds soft attack but also slightly reduces organization. Daniel felt that he had enough soft attack in his infantry units already. It seems his priority was to get anti-tank guns (which presumably add hard attack at the expense of organization).

Honestly, if any support company is a complete no brainer to use in all situations irrespective of overall tactics or particular needs, that strikes me as a problem from a game standpoint.

From a realism standpoint, I think we can assume that smaller artillery (like mortars) are contained within the basic infantry equipment (depending on tech level) so it isn't necessarily the case that not having an artillery company means absolutely no artillery.

I think that this is also a matter of scale -- If you are trying to measure the impact of a company/battery sized unit (100-200 men and 5-6 tubes for artillery) on against a regiment of infantry (2000 to 3000) it is hard to envision any effect (good or bad). On the other hand if you are talking about battalions (600-1000 men and 20-30 tubes of artillery) or regiments/brigades (2000-3000 and 40-60 tubes) then it is an entirely different story. Again, there should be a combined arms "bonus" to use HOI3 terminology that should make it very difficult for any infantry lacking in adequate artillery support other than maybe a few mortars and light guns (a couple per regiment) to beat a well equipped unit of infantry and artillery. It just didn't happen that way in the 1930s and 1940s. Also, even though artillery has limited anti armor capability what it is good at is separating armor (tanks) from supporting infantry (they end up dead from artillery even thought the tanks and tankers are ok) and then the tanks become more vulnerable to close in enemy infantry and their anti tank grenades, bazookas, panzer faust etc. Again this is a possible problem with combat results simulations.

The problem is not simply AI, but also that the alpha build in the first WWW contained a bug which caused Russia to be overtaken (ahistorically) by Trotskyites when it wasn't supposed to, which apparently had a devastating impact on industrial production. Daniel did point out at one point that he could outproduce the Soviets several times over.

I think that this may be the point -- the bug or wad design results in a great and inappropriate play/reality imbalance -- and yes this is either a late alpha or early beta (can't remember which) so it is not unexpected but it is something that needs to be fixed.