Make Artillery Stronger!!!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Funske wrote:

      do you know what happens when arty meets rockets ? massacre
      Only problem with this idea is that most of the time artillery isn't directly located in a province but in between them as they are attacking fortified positions. Rockets are no good in this situation as they can only attack cities and not individual units. Artillery would have to be parked in a city for a rocket to destroy it. Tac Bombers escorted with interceptors work best against artillery and smart players will patrol air defenses above them because of this.
      "It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz

    • ATownGtr wrote:

      Funske wrote:

      do you know what happens when arty meets rockets ? massacre
      Only problem with this idea is that most of the time artillery isn't directly located in a province but in between them as they are attacking fortified positions. Rockets are no good in this situation as they can only attack cities and not individual units. Artillery would have to be parked in a city for a rocket to destroy it. Tac Bombers escorted with interceptors work best against artillery and smart players will patrol air defenses above them because of this.
      rockets can attack individual units just fine, regardless of being in province center or not. Rockets can also attack revealed units (from spy intel) and units that are in the viewing range (but not revealed yet)
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • IshXIII wrote:

      Artillery is strong enough, if you know how to use it. The same counts for mobile artillery.
      I make extensive use of artillery units, both conventional towed artillery as well as self-propelled arty, and regularly configure them with "stacks" (FYI, "formation" is correct military term) of 5, 6, 10 and 12 arty regiments, with AA or SPAA mixed in. In the last week, I have destroyed 27- and 33-unit mixed stacks that included mostly tank brigades using only artillery. Using arty requires time to reduce enemy formations -- just like the real thing. It also requires someone who has absorbed the COW game principles, especially those governing state-based damage efficiency, to wit: three formations of 6 arty regiments is more effective than a single formation of 18 arty regiments. As for the tactical bomber aficionado who brags how he will kill arty units every time, he has apparently never encountered an opponent who understands how to properly defend his artillery with adequate fighter combat air patrols. With adequate fighter cover, I will kill at least one TB for every arty unit killed by a TB big wing, and TB squadrons cost more to produce than arty regiments. And, for the record, I make extensive use of tactical bombers too, but I don't fly mine into the teeth of fighter CAPs and large "stacks" with adequate AA protection. The beauty of arty is you can inflict serious damage on big stacks that have adequate AA while suffering no damage to your own units.

      Every unit type, properly understood, has a valid place in COW game strategy and tactics, including arty regiments. An army without artillery is not a well-balanced force. A player who does not understand and accept the proper role of artillery is fighting with one arm tied behind his back, and is no doubt suffering greater casualties and achieving a lower kills-to-losses ratio than he otherwise would.
    • This game is like Scissors, Paper and Rock just with Tacts and Tanks little advantage but can still be beaten. That's why you can't just count on 1 Unit or 2 because then the Paper (Air) will beat it.

      And please make it a little bit stronger especially Against Navy. Artillery has been used for many years and it was always dominant in wars but less today
    • wildL SPQR wrote:

      rockets can attack individual units just fine, regardless of being in province center or not.
      If you can see enemy units, you can target them with rockets, regardless of whether they are in a city center. True that, and with great effect if you know how to use them.

      That said, our over-powered in-game rockets are one of the least realistic elements of COW as it presently exists. V-2s were notoriously inaccurate, and were completely unsuited for use as a tactical weapon against individual combat units in the field. The Germans could target major urban areas like London or Amsterdam, but could not target individual buildings. In the only known attempted tactical use of the V-2, the Germans were 11 misses in 11 tries against the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen in March 1945. The closest shot landed several hundred meters away; the furthest miss was 40-something kilometers away. The fact that in-game rockets have both the accuracy and power to target and kill individual units in the field is a Bad Joke apparently perpetrated by some V-2 fantasists at Bytro Labs in Hamburg.

      And don't even get me started on the use of in-game rockets to sink ships at sea . . . complete fantasy.

      If I had my way, in-game rockets would be the first thing to go. At a minimum, their accuracy and strength against combat units should be greatly reduced, which would also go a long way to eliminating the problem of abusive spamming of rockets that all experienced players have encountered from time to time.
    • Nickm wrote:

      This game is like Scissors, Paper and Rock
      Yes, it is, but so is all warfare, except with technological advancements in weaponry, the metaphorical rock, paper and scissors change relative positions so that technically advanced "rocks" can defeat technologically deficient "paper," and so on. It has always been so, for all of the history of human warfare, since the first prehistoric human discovered he could kill more easily with a club, then a spear, then a spear with atlatl, then a bow and arrow, then a shield to defend, then body armor to protect, then mechanical devices to penetrate armor, than earthen and stone defensive works and walls, then cannon and firearms, and so on . . . .

      In these discussions, the "rock, paper, scissors" mentality in COW weaponry discussions is trite, and grotesquely over-simplifies WW2 reality. If our in-game weapons technology more closely mirrored their real world, WW2-era counterparts, most of the issues of "balance" would take care of themselves, there would be an even greater emphasis on in-game weapons research, and we would have a much more complex and interesting game for aficionados.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      wildL SPQR wrote:

      rockets can attack individual units just fine, regardless of being in province center or not.
      If you can see enemy units, you can target them with rockets, regardless of whether they are in a city center. True that, and with great effect if you know how to use them.
      That said, our over-powered in-game rockets are one of the least realistic elements of COW as it presently exists. V-2s were notoriously inaccurate, and were completely unsuited for use as a tactical weapon against individual combat units in the field. The Germans could target major urban areas like London or Amsterdam, but could not target individual buildings. In the only known attempted tactical use of the V-2, the Germans were 11 misses in 11 tries against the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen in March 1945. The closest shot landed several hundred meters away; the furthest miss was 40-something kilometers away. The fact that in-game rockets have both the accuracy and power to target and kill individual units in the field is a Bad Joke apparently perpetrated by some V-2 fantasists at Bytro Labs in Hamburg.

      And don't even get me started on the use of in-game rockets to sink ships at sea . . . complete fantasy.

      If I had my way, in-game rockets would be the first thing to go. At a minimum, their accuracy and strength against combat units should be greatly reduced, which would also go a long way to eliminating the problem of abusive spamming of rockets that all experienced players have encountered from time to time.
      The Developer of CoW have explained many times that tech in CoW is not just 1945 era tech, but up to and including 1965-1970 tech. The V2's in CoW might resemble a finished version of the V2. But yes, if you strictly think of the tech in CoW as being 1945 tech many of them are completely unreal. The game has never intended to be 100% accurate in any way.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • wildL SPQR wrote:

      up to and including 1965-1970 tech.
      I have never heard anyone suggest the game included weapons tech up through 1970, only through the mid-1950s, ad most 1950s tech was under active development in 1945-46. If we are including 1970 tech, they should stop calling the game "Call of War 1942," and rename it "Call of War -- Cold War" or some such thing. And if 1970 is the cut-off, then a whole host of other c. 1970 weapons systems should also be included.

      Moreover, even in 1970, there was no such thing as a conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) tactical missile that had the power to destroy an entire tank brigade in the field (120 tanks spread over several hectares/acres, at a minimum). That's why NATO eventually upgraded to tactical neutron weapons in the early 1980s, so that it could stop Soviet tanks in central Germany if it had to do so.

      Frankly, the developers would do well to limit the game to WW2 tech and that which was under active development at the time. Most of the worst abuses I have witnessed in game -- like rocket-spamming -- are a result of the inclusion of anachronistic weapons tech. It's not so much an issue of realism, but one of reasonable "balance" as COW defenders so often claim on other topics. Anachronistic tech is the greatest source of imbalance.
    • OK I was a little off there with the time period, but here is a relevant quote:


      freezy wrote:

      The intended time period within the game reaches from 1932 to 1954 (roughly), that's why also post war units and tech is included.

      And yes we won't scrap the whole balancing only in favour of realism, as that would change the whole game. Certainly many users who are liking the current game would not appreciate that.

      Thanks for the suggestion though :)
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • @wildL SPQR You can't talk about the need for "balance" in the game, and then logically include an anachronistic and grotesquely over-powered fantasy super weapon -- conventional ballistic missiles that can destroy entire regiment/brigade-sized units in the field. It is the inclusion of such anachronistic and over-powered super weapons that creates the imbalance.

      In the case of rockets, cutting their strength against ground units should be the first step. Cutting their strength against buildings should be the second. And given the historical inaccuracy of the real thing, there should also be be randomized factor in the targeting and delivery of in-game rockets, whereby some percentage just go off course. The idea that 10 or 12 in-game rockets can completely destroy a L5 industrial complex, L3 infrastructure, L3 air base, etc., is also evidence of just how over-powered in-game rockets are. The Germans hit Antwerp with over 1,600 V-2s after it was recaptured by the Allies, and -- guess what? -- the port of Antwerp never closed. That 10 or 12 in-game fantasy rockets can completely destroy an entire city and its industry is just plain silly. The inclusion of such over-powered weapons is the greatest source of imbalance in the game.
    • Nickm wrote:

      Why can't you make Artillery Stronger
      Nick, arguably artillery is about as strong as it should be, and I say that as a player who makes extensive use of arty in his games. It is the second most effective weapon in my arsenal after tactical bombers. If you want to discuss tactics to improve your use of arty, I would be happy to do so via COW email or on my Forum profile wall.
    • Nickm wrote:

      People will just secretly land Paratroopers behind it or in cities were its not guarded and i will hate if their is 20 units in each flight it will destroy the game
      We're a little off-topic, but here are two relevant points about the inclusion of paratrooper units in the game --

      First, they're supposed to land behind enemy lines. That's what they do. There's a great line in the mini-series "Band of Brothers," about a company of American paratroops in the 101st Airborne Division during WW2. As the 101st is moving into the Bastogne pocket during the Battle of the Bulge, one of the retreating regular army soldiers says to the paratroops, "You're going to be cut off and surrounded." The airborne officer replies, "Son, we're paratroops. We're supposed to be surrounded." The whole point of paratroops is to circumvent static ground defenses, so, yes, that would definitely change the game to some degree, and arguably for the better.

      Second, IF we introduce a new airborne infantry regiment to the game, then the number of airborne units that each country can produce needs to be strictly limited in some formulaic manner. Airborne troops were and are elite units, and they cannot be produced en masse in the real world, and to permit them to be spammed in the game would destroy the game and ultimately reduce the value of the new unit introduced. In addition to the cost and time required to train paratroops, the biggest limitation on their number during WW2 was the availability of large numbers of suitable transport aircraft for mass air drops. If we assume a division of 15,000 men, and a DC3/C-47 capable of transporting 28 men and personal equipment, it would take over 530 aircraft to air drop the men, and another 100+ planes to air drop the division's heavier equipment such as glider-delivered light artillery, light armor and jeeps. Even the United States and Britain did not have enough available transports to air drop 3 complete airborne divisions into Normandy on D-Day. If we assume that a division is composed of 3 or 4 line regiments of parachute or glider infantry, that means the two wealthiest nations on the planet in June 1944 could not air drop more than 9 to 12 paratrooper regiments. That suggests an absolute upper limit for the number of paratrooper units that in-game countries should be permitted to have. The limits could be absolute (say, no more than 5 or 6 units per country), proportional to the country's air force, proportional to the total number of units (say, no more than 10% of total infantry units), or some combination thereof.

      Unless the permitted numbers of paratroop units are strictly limited, then I too would oppose their inclusion for the reasons stated above. We do not need another unit type that would be subject to abusive spamming. We already have light tanks, submarines and rockets that can be easily spammed, and that's bad enough.
    • Nickm wrote:

      There should be a limit like 5 Paratroopers by each country otherwise people will just spam them not the cost and make it expensive
      That would be a reasonable limit; spamming of paratroopers must be avoided if the new unit type is added. Otherwise, we are going to have a game composed of mostly light tanks, tactical bombers and paratroops. I don't want to witness that result.

      Also, any new airborne infantry unit should be slow and relatively expensive to produce: more money costs, more time to produce, L2 or L3 barracks requirement, etc. The food requirement and daily upkeep should be the same as conventional infantry, but they probably should have some sort of fuel input and upkeep too, to reflect the transport planes required to train them and air drop them for combat.