Artillery puzzle

[john connor]

Hey Dave. This is a question for discussion for CO2, I guess, concerning how strong arty is in game. I put together a little Kursk scenario (in the scenarios section) and I basically put everything that was there historically onto the map, then tried to set up objectives etc to get the AI to follow historical tactics to achieve roughly historical results. But it didn't work, because there were really large concentrations of arty on both sides and if I put them on the map then that was basically the end of any movement. Everything was crippled and pinned and frozen by continuous arty fire, especially the AI moves and initiative. I could get the historical results only by taking out most of the arty that was, apparently, historically present.

My impression - from the sources - is that even though there were many more arty units available than I put in, it was not possible to call on them with the frequency and ease which we have in the game - nothing like that, in fact. In the game you can run the guns with deadly accuracy, on a minute's notice, for many hours without break, and then little rest before starting again. The AI will do that for you, in fact.

I've been wondering, following this experience, whether there could be other scenarios in CO that might run more realistically with less arty in the mix.

So I wondered what your thoughts were on the strength of arty for the future?

Just a point to consider.

Peter

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Interesting Peter. I'm not snubbing you but I really want to focus on getting a build out today so I will get back to this next week.

 

[john connor]

Of course. Whenever you can, Dave. Glad there are builds going out.....!

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

No not "builds". This will be the first build I have put out this year an it will go out to our beta testers just to make sure anything obvious is caught before we do a public beta build.

 

[Perturabo]

I think the main reason for this state of affair is insufficient counter-battery fire, something that I wrote about on the old forums. Normally, artillery would engage in an artillery duel that would result in most of it being either suppressed or trying to suppress enemy artillery.
Lack of proper counter-battery fire in CO results in artillery being free to engage other units.

The problem isn't the strength of artillery. The problem is lack of artillery duels creating excessive availability.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Perturabo,

I beg to disagree with your statement that most of the arty was involved in counterbattery fire missions. Counter battery fire was a pretty specialised role. It was primarily conducted by long range "gun" units at the Corps level. I won't deny that regular howitzer units participated in counter battery but it wasn't their primary role. Also you have to remember that back in WW2 the tools to conduct counter battery were primitive, primarily relying on sound ranging. The equipment and skills for this were very much specialised. IIRC in WW2 most divisions did not have this capability. Rather it was a Corps capability. Moreover it is easier to conduct effective counter battery missions when the front line is static and more difficult when it is fluid.

Having said that it is something we could certainly improve upon.

 

[john connor]

I think it could certainly be true that in this particular scenario I put together (The Corridor) in real life the Axis knew very well that there were huge concentrations of Russian guns on two hills nth west of Prokhorovka (not on my map) and one of the points of the Totenkopf bridgehead and advance north of the Psel was to capture these two hills to silence that arty in preparation for an attack on Prokhorovka. So it's probably reasonable to assume that the Axis, in this case, would have dedicated a large body of arty to suppressing the arty on those two hills and that might help account for why the historical tactics only work out in my scenario if I leave much less arty in (than was historically there) to be ranged at will on the ground units. So Perturabo might have a point in this case, Dave.

The 'Rest after bombard' option, I've noticed, goes a long way towards stopping continuous overpowering arty. It should be part of 'realistic' options, perhaps that you cannot uncheck it. Also, as part of realistic options I would like to see the structure made more rigid, perhaps, so that, in effect, the 'arty direct support only' was always checked (without option) for Bn level guns, maybe even higher. And then the AI alone (not the player) should control those guns. But you would have to write a good script for a prep barrage first, perhaps, as the only way to prep an attack with arty now is to do it yourself. Plus slower response times from the arty? And more variable accuracy?

These are the things that spring to mind, generally, now that I think that the point made above about counter-battery fire at Prokhorovka is taken into account. Because I haven't noticed the effects I noticed in my Prokhorovka scenario elsewhere, not generally. So I think Perterabo's point probably accounts for why in this scenario you can't just load the map with all the arty that was involved historically and expect the historical effect (because all the arty that was involved wasn't on the map, basically, and much of it was fighting arty also off map, in this case).

Peter

 

[Rob]

Hi all,

Perhaps a counter-battery task option for arty would be a way to increase the chances of arty counter-battery missions from designated units. Allowances (higher or lower probabilities for example) could be made for the differences in training/equipment etc. for counter-battery work at Corps/Div./Regiment/Battalion etc. levels of organic arty units. The wait time for player designated arty strikes could perhaps be somewhat longer as well.
My 2 cents.......

Rob.

 

[Perturabo]

Perturabo,

I beg to disagree with your statement that most of the arty was involved in counterbattery fire missions. Counter battery fire was a pretty specialised role. It was primarily conducted by long range "gun" units at the Corps level. I won't deny that regular howitzer units participated in counter battery but it wasn't their primary role. Also you have to remember that back in WW2 the tools to conduct counter battery were primitive, primarily relying on sound ranging. The equipment and skills for this were very much specialised. IIRC in WW2 most divisions did not have this capability. Rather it was a Corps capability. Moreover it is easier to conduct effective counter battery missions when the front line is static and more difficult when it is fluid.

Special detection techniques would only add to amount of detected artillery units. In CO, the AI tends to be pretty bad at silencing artillery units that are already detected and located by normal means.

Having said that it is something we could certainly improve upon.

True.
This topic reminds me how the AI was horribly under-using its artillery and failing to deal with my artillery in this AAR:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3471524

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Perturabo,

AI is never perfected. It just gets better or worse with each tinkering.

 

[john connor]

You mean it can't be like a human, Dave? You mean you can't get it to that level? Because if that's your point then I think now's the time to come clean.....I was hoping that one day this engine could replace my entire family and circle of friends.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

On the contrary Peter, show me a "perfect" human!

Also I do not recommend replacing your family and friends with this engine. It doesn't cook, clean or take out the garbage nor does it offer sympathy.