Forum > Theater of Operations: World at War
Artillery Revisited
choppinlt:
Hello Sailor Malan, and welcome! :) Yes, national artillery doctrines are definitely part of this game. I have spent an immense amount of time trying to capture how this should play out. In fact, I am currently focusing on algorithms to effectively allocate artillery for engagements. I already have algorithms on how to execute all other fire missions, but I have recently been focusing on artillery support for engagements, because it requires a different process. It's a more difficult process than what people may think due to the number of variables involved...
As you mention, US/UK will be the most flexible/responsive artillery due to their doctrine, followed by the Germans, with Soviets being inflexible...but quite volumous to help make up for it! ;D Sailor Malan I have a fair amount of good information on this topic, HOWEVER if you want to send me website links I am always open for new resources. You can respond here or PM me if you prefer.
Sailor Malan:
It's a wide topic, and one where there is a big tension between delivering a good tactical game, and a realistic one. In a purely tactical game, artillery can completely unbalance a scenario, or reduce it to a trivial contest. However I have never understood why a larger scale game wouldn't deal better with artillery command and control. With your game, the issue does not arise because (just like really unbalanced force sizes) the artillery heavy battles can just be auto-resolved (or not, sometimes the forlorn hope can be fun to play!)
There is also a few persistent national myths that just wont lie down (Soviet massive artillery use without the huge lack of flexibility, German responsive artillery without the rigid allocations, and, my favourite, inaccurate British artillery).
I don't any primary sources, but I find the two sites below a good starting point.
http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artytut.shtml
http://nigelef.tripod.com/maindoc.htm
Obviously the first iink breaks the golden rule of not using games as sources! ;D
choppinlt:
Agreed it is a big topic, and not always easy to quantify or qualify. Arty can have a massive impact on a tactical level game, and whether or not it is too powerful is always up for debate. I opined in an earlier post that artillery's impact is greatest at the operational level. In short, it helps shape the battlefield as well as take a direct role tactically. I agree with Stalin's quote that artillery is "the god of war". So I want to replicate this as best I can, and the best way I can do this is to incorporate national doctrine. I'm not sure if there has been any aspect regarding game design that I have spent more time on than artillery and its various impacts.
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on August 21, 2017, 10:00:30 PM ---With your game, the issue does not arise because (just like really unbalanced force sizes) the artillery heavy battles can just be auto-resolved (or not, sometimes the forlorn hope can be fun to play!)
--- End quote ---
Ha, agreed! It can be fun to relive a Thermopylae...in a game ofcourse... :)
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on August 21, 2017, 10:00:30 PM ---There is also a few persistent national myths that just wont lie down (Soviet massive artillery use without the huge lack of flexibility, German responsive artillery without the rigid allocations, and, my favourite, inaccurate British artillery).
I don't any primary sources, but I find the two sites below a good starting point.
http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artytut.shtml
http://nigelef.tripod.com/maindoc.htm
Obviously the first iink breaks the golden rule of not using games as sources! ;D
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the links! :) As it turns out I have already referenced them both. Nigel's site is particularly fantastic, :thumbsup and provided some important data.
I will point out that your stated major point of contention is actually affirmed in the Fire and Fury artillery discussion. It states that the British were willing to sacrifice some accuracy for speed. My personal interpretation of these differences is really just splitting hairs, and that the US and British achieved the same relative effect by slightly different methods. So no worries, there is currently no quality difference between US and British arty in Theater of Operations! 8)
I am interested in research/scholastic material on this, so if there is any other solid material you run across I am open to reviewing it. I have reviewed various field manuals, as well as after action reports, case studies, and post-war studies. I am contemplating the addition of the Time on Target attacks to both US and Brit arty. While ToT was used by the US, it's implementation can roughly incorporate the Mike/Uncle etc. type missions the Brits used. I am currently undecided, because I don't want to overstate the relative impact. This is something that I will evaluate during the beta process, but currently it is NOT in use. Otherwise every nation can plan multi battery fire missions.
Currently I am working on allocation of artillery during the engagement process in Theater of Operations. In the first post of this thread I talked about Op Fire Missions. I gave a Case 1 and Case 2. The engagement process (i.e. when a tactical battle occurs) is Case 2. My current design is simple for the attacker. The attacker is allocated the artillery that has been "Dedicated" to the attacking unit through the Battle Group creation process (which is another thread). So my focus has been on how to allocate artillery to defending units in a ground engagement. It has NOT been an easy process to develop computer logic due to all the variables and game mechanisms, but I had a breakthrough in developing this in the last couple of weeks. The basic framework is that engagements are evaluated, and prioritized. Then artillery support "needs" are evaluated for each engagement, then artillery is allocated to those engagements. Sounds simple and straight forward right? Well it is simple at this level, and then you start digging in to the details. Things like predicting future battles need to occur so that artillery doesn't over respond to the initial battles and become unavailable for a battle occurring just a few minutes later that may be a much higher priority . Then it goes on from there with all the other variables and considerations. People may ask why I am doing this, because in reality arty was typically more flexible (especially British and US) and could support multiple engagements simultaneously. The need to assign arty batteries specific engagements to support is necessary to develop an Order of Battle for players of tactical battles.
As always, let me know your thoughts and comments. :)
Sailor Malan:
Thanks for your reply, it is really everything I could wish for. I have no beef with the RA (British Army artillery) being a little further out on spotting rounds in a tactical game, but this is often taken to mean their artillery was less effective. I have also seen the 25pdr described as too small for FA work - whereas the RA was supremely skillful at the end of WW1 and whilst some ground was lost interwar, was not bad even in 1939 and recovered ground and forged ahead by 1942. I am not rubbishing anyone else's artillery but for some reason the Brits often get criticism for very poor reasons.
Off immediate topic but my favourite example of this is the much quoted comment (usually allegedly from German sources) that the British "were predictable", taken to mean were easily countered. Whereas in fact the predictability was more a symptom of being thorough and systematic - going the safer 'average' result rather than the 'Hail Mary' win big or lose big option (as British losses in WW1 could not be repeated). This predictablity didn't enable the Germans to do any better against them. In fact, ironically the Germans were predicitable in a way - the rapid counterattack being the predictable response to most gains, and often (against forces that knew what they were doing) counter productive.
Anyway, back on topic: I don't think you need to think of the artillery allocation problem in response to combat as a "game" problem; it is of course a RL problem too. The artillery commanders have exactly this problem. The solution is to use similar strategies to RL. The AI needs to work out the main point of attack, and give a higher % chance of the artillery going there. I am not sure how, of course ;). The other criterion is which battle the AI would least like to lose based on some scoring system..
choppinlt:
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on August 23, 2017, 08:45:23 PM ---Thanks for your reply, it is really everything I could wish for. I have no beef with the RA (British Army artillery) being a little further out on spotting rounds in a tactical game, but this is often taken to mean their artillery was less effective.
--- End quote ---
You're welcome, and understood. From what I can tell, it has to do with the degree of accuracy. We are not talking 1km CEP! So the CEP is a slightly larger for Brit rounds to fall, but the overall effect was virtually immeasurable. The speed in response could make up for 'inaccuracy', but the inaccuracy introduced could be compensated by a slightly larger dispersion.
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on August 23, 2017, 08:45:23 PM ---I have also seen the 25pdr described as too small for FA work
--- End quote ---
Regarding the 25 pdr, I understand it to be a fine artillery piece. It has its advantages and disadvantages, just like every other piece. Clearly field artillery only increased in size over the following decades of WWII, but I don't knock the 25 pdr for just being a light artillery piece. It appears to have been fine for its intended role in its day. Sure the 25 pdr was not as heavy as the 105, but it could be fired rapidly to saturate an area, or sustain suppression. I would guess that the smaller shell made it well suited for rolling barrages because of reduced splinter area.
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on August 23, 2017, 08:45:23 PM ---Off immediate topic but my favourite example of this is the much quoted comment (usually allegedly from German sources) that the British "were predictable", taken to mean were easily countered. Whereas in fact the predictability was more a symptom of being thorough and systematic - going the safer 'average' result rather than the 'Hail Mary' win big or lose big option (as British losses in WW1 could not be repeated). This predictablity didn't enable the Germans to do any better against them.
--- End quote ---
Interesting side note. Since you bring this up I will mention that there is a factor that is applied to each nation to help capture some of these national differences that can't be directly represented. The best factor being the Germans due to various doctrines, training and, organization. The US and UK both have a reduced factor. A significant reason for the reduced factor of US and UK forces has to do with the manpower dedicated to non-combat roles (e.g. supply, comm, etc.) at the battalion level. The Soviets have the worst factor due to their doctrine and styles, but not by that much. Part of the reason for the small difference between US/UK forces and the Soviets is that some of the unique factors with commanding Soviet forces are directly represented in ToO and therefore don't need to be abstracted. Each nation will have its own unique feel, though the US and Brits are extremely similar. Probably the biggest difference between commanding US and UK forces is how they are equipped and organized, so for that reason alone you get a unique feel. All of this will be a work in progress and will continually be tweaked as development progresses. This gives me an idea for a new thread...Thanks! 8)
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on August 23, 2017, 08:45:23 PM ---Anyway, back on topic: I don't think you need to think of the artillery allocation problem in response to combat as a "game" problem; it is of course a RL problem too. The artillery commanders have exactly this problem. The solution is to use similar strategies to RL. The AI needs to work out the main point of attack, and give a higher % chance of the artillery going there. I am not sure how, of course ;). The other criterion is which battle the AI would least like to lose based on some scoring system..
--- End quote ---
Very true! ;D However, in theory a battery could be giving 60% to 1 engagement while giving another concurrent engagement 40% in terms of responding to fire requests. But ToO clearly defines which battery is supporting which engagement for OOB purposes. I think I have it mostly handled at this point, because like you suggest a prioritized list is developed. The good news is that there is a logic to it, but trying to capture the logic with all the variables is what creates the challenge. I can tell you that the basic logic is to apply a range of different arty assets to each engagement, keeping in mind availability, range and other factors. For instance, it would be normal to see a US infantry battalion be supported in defense with a battery of 4.2-in mortars, a battery of 105's and a battery of 155's (assuming they are actually available). Keep in mind that this is in addition to organic arty already present, like battalion mortars. Circumstances may allow more or less arty. There are also limitations that much be applied, otherwise you could theoretically place a single infantry co, dedicate 4 FA Battalions to it, and watch it resist an unrealistic amount of enemy combat power. I know this is ripe for a spirited retort... I am well aware of 2/120 on Hill 314 at Mortain, and that can be replicated. All I am saying is that there is a balance that must be kept in mind. :sifone
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page