Artillery..not the god of war!

[mictator]

Hi,

how make you the Artillery. In Panzer Corps is it, you have one infantry and the Ary is nearby, the ary defense unlimited (ok, Ammo limited) the infantry.

That is very unrealistic in a game where you are in your turn only have one attack per unit and unbalanced. It's like ww1 and not ww2.
Only for small Ary (7,5cm-7,62cm) it's a good option.

greetings

[adherbal]

Artillery does not provide defensive support in OoBP. If you want to weaken an attack force with artillery you'll have to do it during your turn.

Anti-Tank and Anti-Air units do support adjacent friendly units during the enemy's turn though. They count as "support units" and are unique in this behaviour. So if an AT gun is placed among infantry it will be able to support them when attacked by enemy armour.

[Mark50]

And how does that support happen? Will the AT gun fire instead of the infantry unit that is attacked by the tank, in addition to it like the artillery in PG or simply increases the stats of the nearby infantry without actually shooting?

[adherbal]

It increases the infantry's AT stats and the AT gun plays its firing animation to highlight that it is supporting the defending unit.

[mictator]

good,good. Ary is not so important. In Panzer Corps i can outwit the Ki. Difficult grade is not so wichtig to say in german: Scheiß egal. Hauptsache nearby Artillery.

I hope the AT or AA factor is not so important increased for the infantry or other units.

Please do not think i make bashing over bashing, but over 20 years i play this genre, that not i want a perfect game, but a good game.

What is your unit statistics. Like Panzer Corps/general or other?

[Carius]

I find it disappointing to hear that artillery will not be giving defensive support fire to adjacent units that are under attack. Supporting fire has always been artillery primary purpose in battle.

[adherbal]

Supporting fire has always been artillery primary purpose in battle.

It is, but during your own turn. There are several flaws in the concept of artillery supporting adjacent friendlies: Why can they fire multiple times per turn when no other units can? Why only support adjacent units if you consider most artillery has a range of several hexes? Why have this mechanic at all if the artillery can already do their thing - weakening targetted units - during their own turn, just like any other unit?

The reason we have AA and AT units providing support during their opponent's turn is because in reality these units would be mixed in with infantry and tanks, not fight as seperate units. It means tanks can't just ignore AT guns and attack the adjacent infantry instead (still a better choice than attacking the AT position directly though). It also makes towed AT units more valuable as defensive units, since each of them can improve the performance of several other units.

What is your unit statistics. Like Panzer Corps/general or other?

The game has a more detailed combat model. Units are split into combat types such as "Small Aircraft" or "Large Aircraft" and "Small Ship" or "Large Ship" and have a specific performance against these types. For example heavy fighters with good high altitude performance have better performance agains bombers (Large aircraft) compared to lightly armed, low altitude machines while the latter may still beat the former in a dogfight; or dive bombers' precision attacks being effective against small, light warships while torpedo bombers excel against large, easier to hit capital ships.

It basicaly allows a much more diverse use of several unit types within the same class.

[Tarrak]

Supporting fire has always been artillery primary purpose in battle.

It is, but during your own turn. There are several flaws in the concept of artillery supporting adjacent friendlies: Why can they fire multiple times per turn when no other units can? Why only support adjacent units if you consider most artillery has a range of several hexes? Why have this mechanic at all if the artillery can already do their thing - weakening targetted units - during their own turn, just like any other unit?

The reason we have AA and AT units providing support during their opponent's turn is because in reality these units would be mixed in with infantry and tanks, not fight as seperate units. It means tanks can't just ignore AT guns and attack the adjacent infantry instead (still a better choice than attacking the AT position directly though). It also makes towed AT units more valuable as defensive units, since each of them can improve the performance of several other units.

I like your idea about the support AT and AA units. It sounds like a good mechanic. While i personally agree artillery in Panzer General and Coprs seems to be a at least a bit on the overpowered side and it's mechanic got the logical flaws you described denying it defensive fire capability totally may disappoint a lot of people. Maybe a compromise for artillery would be a good solution. You can either use it offensively on your turn or put it instead in a defensive mode which kind of turns the artillery unit into a support unit which can provide support to adjacent units like an AT gun would.

What is your unit statistics. Like Panzer Corps/general or other?

The game has a more detailed combat model. Units are split into combat types such as "Small Aircraft" or "Large Aircraft" and "Small Ship" or "Large Ship" and have a specific performance against these types. For example heavy fighters with good high altitude performance have better performance agains bombers (Large aircraft) compared to lightly armed, low altitude machines while the latter may still beat the former in a dogfight; or dive bombers' precision attacks being effective against small, light warships while torpedo bombers excel against large, easier to hit capital ships.

It basicaly allows a much more diverse use of several unit types within the same class.

Sounds very interesting. I can't wait to see the system in action.

[adherbal]

Maybe a compromise for artillery would be a good solution. You can either use it offensively on your turn or put it instead in a defensive mode which kind of turns the artillery unit into a support unit which can provide support to adjacent units like an AT gun would.

That would elevate a couple of the concerns, but personally I don't think the mechanic is needed in this game. Movement and progression is generally a bit slower then in PG - with Pacific armies relying more on infantry than armour and maps being covered with difficult terrain - so an experienced defender should have plenty of time to spot an enemy force preparing for attack and use artillery to soften it up.

Also important to note: Artillery effects and efficiency damage work different from PG, it is not limited to a single attack or turn. Units lose efficiency through movement (esp through difficult terrain), combat and loss of supply. It represents morale, fatigue and unit cohesion. In order for efficiency to recover units must remain idle and out of combat for a few turns. So if a defender detects an incoming attack force and peppers it with artillery and air strikes it can be crippled (efficiency loss) before the attack even begins.

In this combat system having artillery provide additional defensive support against any attack on an adjacent unit would just make them to powerful. Also I think it should be interesting to have the decision to choose which enemy unit(s) to target with your artillery, rather than relying on automatic fire being able to damage any attacking unit.

[mictator]

Large Fighter, good idea. In Advanced Daisenryaku is this standard.

In Daisenryaku Heavy Tanks have big Problems with difficult terrain, like rain effects that make a swamp or bridges to cross.

The Artillery solution from Pacific is extremly better than by Panzer Corps.

Is light to explain why: I need only a blocking unit in difficult terrain likes bridges and one or two artillery and a fighter to cover the artillery.
The AI see it and he make nothing.

Another situation: one panzer 38(t) or Pz III F and one Artillery versus Matilda II or T-34. My Panzer is one to one dead, but with Ary Support the AI make no Attack.
Very hard to see it and in my turn the other tank is dead. The diffult grade make no other options for the AI. Like first attack heavy casulties and the next my panzer is dead.

I want not to make a Panzer Corps Bashing here, but for me is the overhelming Ary Support a very great Design failure. One Unit, one Attack. For Panzer the Overrun Option is good.

The Compromise for me is one support attack from every logical unit like AT(Pak), Artillery and AA(Flak). Not only for Pacific, but for Panzer Corps too.

greetings

[Mark50]

Personally I think that for this game genre to stay interesting it needs to have, from time to time, - relatively - profound changes from its predecessors, otherwise any new title would feel pretty much like a new campaign with a skin pack. Of course, it`s trickier to go with new concepts than with the established ones and I`m also wondering how the lack of defensive role for artillery would fit in game, but I`m going to keep an open mind about it. Certainly, the concepts mentioned about aircraft and ships sound great and I`m looking forward to having a new and positive experience with this game.

[ruggs215]

I'm not sure if I like this. Artillery's main functions were to suppress troops and to try to blunt attacks. I don't know the exact affect it had in PC but it was a little to strong on the defensive support.

In my opinion the defensive support feature should remain in the game, but may be toned down. Say a full strength unit (10) attacked another full unit (10) that was backed by artillery it should only be able to attack with 8 units because some would get pinned down by artillery. That is true in real life and is why in real battle it is important to outflank an enemy so you don't get into the artillery's line of fire.

The part I didn't like about PC was that if you suppressed the enemy's infantry that the full infantry can still make an attack on the same turn for the AI. For example, I suppressed but didn't kill an infantry unit on turn 1. Now it should stay suppressed the entire turn, but in PC it can make a full attack on the AI turn 1.

So if the defensive support feature is not used in this game, at the very least if you attack with artillery and suppress an enemy that it should stay suppressed to the end of that round. Otherwise it seems that artillery will be quite useless.

[Razz1]

I agree that PC should have artillery do more suppression than attack.

I also see the point that the AI is stupid, moves to attack and stumbles into a defensive artillery shot.

the question I have is.............

The order of fire.

If the AI fires last as it does in Panzer Korps, it make the AI weak.

The calculation for attack needs to be reworked.

[mictator]

The Summary:

For Panzer korps, more surpression and not casulties.

For Pacific, one unit, one attack and one support for PaK and other support weapons.

[Myrddraal]

one support for PaK and other support weapons.

It doesn't quite work like that. Support weapons effectively increase the stats of neighbouring units, depending on their function. AT units will give adjacent units AT capabilities. This applies to all neighbouring units.

The in-game animations will show the AT unit firing. This is not a separate attack, but it shows the player when a unit is providing support.

[mictator]

ok, understand.

It make's AT interesting, but i think for the most players in this genre of games i didnt buy a PAK. The Player must play offensivly. Tanks, Aircraft's and Artillery and specialised Infantry.

But for the AI it's good. He plays mostly defensivly and PAK good for this.

[Durin1978]

ok, understand.
...The Player must play offensivly. ...

I think that is a matter of Leveldesign. If you would play the japanese, then there would be a lot more defensive actions to play, as long as history is followed.

Historically you can say more or less, that at first the japanese were on the offensive, but after the americans recovered from pearl harbour and started their offensive drive, Japan was more and more occupied with defensive matters.

So there is enough potential for defensive played levels, regardless if you play US, or Japan.

[mictator]

Yeah, i know the strategic direction of the pacific or european theater, but in this games or genre of games it's irrelevant.
you must win strategic sites(cities,ports or airfields) and go aggresivly, your units must move every turn and your army must be selfpropelled mostly.

Artillery is slow, but you have stukas and other equivalent aircraft for mobile artillery.
This is the problem of this scenarios.

Ki is in this games mostly a mess(Daisenryaku too), not aggressive enough. Overhelming Masses of units for the KI. But in Panzer Korps or Panzer General, not enough units for the KI. In Daisenryaku is the solution, more KI's for the Computer. In the East Front, three-five army's for the KI and scenarios without Air Cover for the Player.

[Durin1978]

Sorry, but I can´t see why my statement about a matter of Leveldesign is counterargued with anything in your post, even as it reads itself that way.

It is true that in other games till now most of the time mobile armys were required.
But you argue with the assumption that this game will follow the same game design. Why couldn´t it be here so that you you play more defensive battles and that your forces don´t have to be that mobile? As far as I know there wasn´t announced anything regarding this kind of game design. The historical backround would have the potential. If it really is the case I don´t know. But you seem the have it as a 100% certain that again mobile forces will be required. From what I heard till now they changed a lot of game mnechanics compared with previous titles of the genre that another change isn´t impossible.

So regarding everything, as I said, it is a question of game- and leveldesign if you will be able to make good use of slower, more defensive orientated units.

Perhaps the devs can say something about this and we can stop a discussion based more or less on assumptions.

[mictator]

Level Design, mmhh...the designers wrote you are bogged down when you move. Ok, offensive a bit slower than other games, but in the combat sequence they write their are more panzer than usual in the pacific. Mobile units are better than feet or carried units. Simple Mathmatic in this games.

You have right when the devs write to this questions, but for me that we write and argue over this make good ideas for the devs.
That is no i'm right and you are not blabla for me. You know.

I think we can it first know, when we play the game. But when we not discuss over that or other things they made the same as the dev's in this genre.

Many player i know have no clue over the eastern games in this genre. There a good or bad as other games, but they have a other level design, like multi ki, who every KI has own supply, units and hq's and you fight not only with one KI with one suppl ypool of units. That is Level Design too. The Turn for the KI is longer, every KI has it's own turn.
One KI act's before you, than you and the next two KI's after you.

Hey, is there a Chance of Multi KI, dear OoBP?