Artillery Mountain Terrain Disadvantage

    • Artillery Mountain Terrain Disadvantage

      New

      Just one small suggestion here....

      It seems to me that the Artillery -- at least the higher level ones -- should have their Mountainous Terrain penalty removed. Actually, the higher the Artillery level, it would seem that they should be getting a Hills and Mountains bonus.

      The SP-Arties already get a Plains bonus for their mobility's sake. But the slower ones....well, it makes sense that they'd take advantage in the hills to get a better fix on the enemy. So I propose the following for Arties:


      Terrain Strength
      Modifier
      Artillery
      Level 1
      Artillery
      Level 2
      Artillery
      Level 3
      Artillery
      Level 4
      Artillery
      Level 5
      Artillery
      Level 6
      (Elite)
      Notes:
      Plains+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%This is unchanged.
      Hills+/- 0%+5%+5%+10%+20%+30%This makes the most sense.
      Mountains-25%-15%-5%+5%+15%+25%Starts with initial disadvantage.
      Urban+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+10%+15%Modify only the highest levels.
      Fortress Bound
      (Inside Fortress)
      +/- 0%+5%+5%+10%+10%+15%Special idea: modify fortress
      bonuses by additional amount.



      Normally, only the Mountainous terrain would modify the Artillery and only by the -25%. My proposal makes the changes more dynamic to the terrain. However, for the inevitable naysayers, this is not already covered/simulated by the additional strengths of each higher Artillery level.

      Note that SP-Arties should have similar changes in the hills and mountains, but not in the urban and plains terrains. The increases in hills and mountains could be milder for the SP versions.

      The Fortress Bound variant could be the start of adding a new terrain modifier to the list for all units, that which gives a special bonus compounded with the terrain based not on the Fortress's generic percentage increases (which should remain) but on special and specific strength increases that are practical to each unit type and for each unit level. Yes, this would complicate both the math for the user and the programming for the developers. But this change would be fairly easy to implement and would be relatively easy to balance over several update tweaks.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

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

    • New

      Diabolical wrote:

      Just one small suggestion here....

      It seems to me that the Artillery -- at least the higher level ones -- should have their Mountainous Terrain penalty removed. Actually, the higher the Artillery level, it would seem that they should be getting a Hills and Mountains bonus.

      The SP-Arties already get a Plains bonus for their mobility's sake. But the slower ones....well, it makes sense that they'd take advantage in the hills to get a better fix on the enemy. So I propose the following for Arties:


      Terrain StrengthModifierArtilleryLevel 1ArtilleryLevel 2ArtilleryLevel 3ArtilleryLevel 4ArtilleryLevel 5ArtilleryLevel 6(Elite)
      Notes:
      Plains+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%This is unchanged.
      Hills+/- 0%+5%+5%+10%+20%+30%This makes the most sense.
      Mountains-25%-15%-5%+5%+15%+25%Starts with initial disadvantage.
      Urban+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+/- 0%+10%+15%Modify only the highest levels.
      Fortress Bound(Inside Fortress)+/- 0%+5%+5%+10%+10%+15%Special idea: modify fortressbonuses by additional amount.


      Normally, only the Mountainous terrain would modify the Artillery and only by the -25%. My proposal makes the changes more dynamic to the terrain. However, for the inevitable naysayers, this is not already covered/simulated by the additional strengths of each higher Artillery level.

      Note that SP-Arties should have similar changes in the hills and mountains, but not in the urban and plains terrains. The increases in hills and mountains could be milder for the SP versions.

      The Fortress Bound variant could be the start of adding a new terrain modifier to the list for all units, that which gives a special bonus compounded with the terrain based not on the Fortress's generic percentage increases (which should remain) but on special and specific strength increases that are practical to each unit type and for each unit level. Yes, this would complicate both the math for the user and the programming for the developers. But this change would be fairly easy to implement and would be relatively easy to balance over several update tweaks.
      Rugged terrain and reduced mobility severely impact field artillery by the extreme difficulty of ground mobility in mountainous terrain. In this game the mountains are of the kind with great height and narrow roads that any army wwII would have extreme difficulty in placing them in strategic positions with a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point. Personally i think the game designer's have got this right.
    • New

      Humbly I disagree artillery, AT and AA guns where used very succesfully in mountenous terrain to not only halt but even decimate advancing armies with relative ease. Yes these type of equipment are very hard to move and position but once they are in place in advantegeous terrain they are nearly unassailable by either ground or air.

      You want to give them a further movement penalty in mountenous terrain by all means be my guest but their strength values should be doubled when in mountains.
    • New

      Diabolical wrote:

      ...would be relatively easy to balance over several update tweaks.
      Please. I have played the game for over two years now, and there has been one general update tweak.

      ONE.

      So combining the words "easy" and "several update tweaks" in one sentence seems idealistic.

      I also would agree with the previous speaker that artillery was highly effective ESPECIALLY in difficult terrain. Simply put: if your target's mobility is decreased, it is easier to hit it.
      Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege. - Josef Stalin.
    • New

      Kanaris wrote:

      once they are in place in advantegeous terrain they are nearly unassailable by either ground or air.
      Precisely. This is the point. Especially, at a distance, the advantages of artillery in the mountains over units [presumably] down-slope would give artillery a tremendous additional advantage above and beyond the normal artillery ranged attack strengths. And, as Kanaris mentioned, once in place, a non-moving unit can stay quite camouflaged, even while firing.

      This is a mid-twentieth century era-based game. It's not like the enemy has infrared tracking sensors. In this time period, only very careful -- and oftentimes lucky -- visual spotting was needed to even find a target that's firing at you from an elevated position in distant mountain positions.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      ...would be relatively easy to balance over several update tweaks.
      Please. I have played the game for over two years now, and there has been one general update tweak.
      ONE.

      So combining the words "easy" and "several update tweaks" in one sentence seems idealistic.

      I also would agree with the previous speaker that artillery was highly effective ESPECIALLY in difficult terrain. Simply put: if your target's mobility is decreased, it is easier to hit it.
      Actually, I can think of at least one, if not two...or more...major force balancing updates in the past three years that I've played CoW. But there have been several minor force balancing updates all along the way. Usually, these minor 'tweaks' get only passing mention in the announcements. And, often, some of those minor tweaks go completely unannounced, altogether.

      Updating the terrain strength modification for Artillery, only, would not be considered a major force balancing issue though it would be irresponsible of the devs not to record any changes (at least, at first) concerning the Artillery. However, a reasonable announcement in an update could simply say that the changes are being made and that the numbers might be tweaked and re-tweaked over the next several updates but that the changes may be too minor to mention in every single update along the way.

      So, it is not idealistic to use "easy" and "several" in one sentence since this isn't a major overhaul of all the units, and not really even a major overhaul of just one unit. However, if my proposal sub-point about adding Fortress modifications to act more like a terrain modifier for various unit types rather than a generic bonus applied to all units could be considered a much larger undertaking. But, as with my idea for rebalancing the tech requirement paths for advanced level units, this is a change that, though it might not seem like a necessity, having that assumption does not negate the worthiness of it.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • New

      actually field artillery IS at a disadvantage in mountains? why? because they cannot see the other side of the mountain and in some cases they cannot hit because the ballistic trajectory is interrupted by the mountains themselves.

      of course it can be used to great effect if the layout allows it but that is not always the case so a penalty is indeed warranted.

      now the real solution is to introduce a different type of unit and that is the howitzer. the howitzer artillery piece IS designed for mountains. It can fire at high angles and this reduces the problem of terrain masking. Heavy mortars have this similar characteristic.

      some field artillery systems can now replicate this by fitting a disc between the fuse and shell. the disc acts as a spoiler creating a lot of drag to reduce the shell velocity. Reducing the amount of charge to propel the shell and using high gun elevations allowed you to fire almost like a howitzer. I did spend time on operations using Charge 1, High Angle, Spoiler settings because we were in very mountainous terrain. However this was not something available in WW2 so howitzers should be introduced with a bonus in mountains.


    • New

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      actually field artillery IS at a disadvantage in mountains? why? because they cannot see the other side of the mountain and in some cases they cannot hit because the ballistic trajectory is interrupted by the mountains themselves.
      You are assuming two things, here: one, that the artillery crew doesn't have spotters in the field to relay the target locations behind a hill, and two, that the artillery isn't above the target, having been place upon the hill. Based on my reasoning, the artillery has the advantage of better visibility of its target as well as a downslope addition to the range and angles beyond same-elevation targeting.

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      now the real solution is to introduce a different type of unit and that is the howitzer. the howitzer artillery piece IS designed for mountains. It can fire at high angles and this reduces the problem of terrain masking. Heavy mortars have this similar characteristic.
      Unfortunately, while this might make sense...or at least a technical upgrade that represents the Howitzer, having it as a separate unit is less desired by the need for a limitation in the total numbers of unit variety. My idea improves an existing unit, yours adds more units. The devs favor improvement over addition. This is a game, after all. Thus it is that long range guns and cannons, howitzers, and mortars all fall under the title of "Artillery".

      BTW, howitzers have been around for hundreds of years.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • New

      Now sure, it is more realistic, but if we are going down that road then it should get a decrease in speed. Also this game is not a simulator, and units already have enough trouble getting places having to deal with bombers, no point in making it harder for them to get into position to attack while already being attacked.

      Another thing is that this would be yet another thing for new players to struggle with. Many seem to have trouble realising that global chat is a chat with everyone playing the game, never mind things like SBDE. This will only make it harder and lead to more decimation of beginner players by more experienced ones. I don't think this will do the game much good. Artillery is already extremely effective anyways.

      As well as that, it is bad enough that units already go slower in mountains, meaning they receive more damage already because they go slower so they are bombarded for longer. No point in further aggravating this by making artillery stronger.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • New

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Many seem to have trouble realising that global chat is a chat with everyone playing the game
      You know, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation that newer users would get this confused. They are going to assume it's global to their match only, because they see competing chat tabs which are clearly localized...to an extent...and, they also only see a small amount of text scrolling by -- relatively speaking -- which implies that the "whole world" of players aren't using the same chat.

      You see, most newer users, when they open and try to participate in the chat system, assume that many other users would also be doing this at the same time. By implication, an international game with multiple languages, thousands of concurrently-running matches, and potentially millions of players at any given time (their assumption) ——— by implication ——— the global chat would have to have thousands of messages scrolling by every few minutes.

      However, since such a tiny minority of users ever bother to participate in the in-game chats...by comparison to the anticipated usage...making that false assumption about internal match "global" chats is not only understandable, it should be largely expected. So then, maybe something could be done to mitigate this false belief by so many players.

      First, it would behove the devs to change the chat labels to better-reflect the state of each tab. Currently, there are the following tabs: Coalition, Help, High Command, Alliance, Global, Frontline. Now, for us experienced folks, those make sense. But to avoid any confusion, the High Command* tab should not be shown to non-premium members just as Frontline isn't shown to non-FP members. This would reduce the clutter of too many tabs.

      Second, promoting the chats to every user...frequently...would increase it's usage by tremendous levels. Sure, this might get annoying to some users, but it need not be an obnoxious promotion. Just as the Gold multiplier ad pops up on occasion, so too, could a reminder that the chat is there for everyone...help chat for questions, alliance chat for your buds, coalition chat for your in-match allies, and the global chat for everyone on earth.

      Of course, a less-intrusive chat reminder that would be both effective and at-least somewhat less annoying might be for the chat window (when closed) to self-open...briefly...in a slow scrolling effect that pops out...way out...into the middle of the screen and has a glowing arrow (like in the tutorial) which points to the tabs and says something to the effect "try out the global chat and make some new friends to play with...or AGAINST!". After a couple seconds, this popup would scroll back to the edge of the screen.

      Now, that kind of a rollout chat reminder would have to be infrequent enough not to become too big a nuisance. But it would also need to not appear if the chat window is already open and it might be nice to have it (along with other notices, etc.) be able to be turned off as an option, e.g., a "Turn on/off reminders" toggle switch, similar to the mobile version for most controllable options.


      ~O~

      * I know the corporation wants every opportunity to "educate" potential premium users with as much advertisement as possible (like the old adage of having first class on board an airline primarily serves to remind other passengers that they don't have first class...a form of envy-based advertisements). And Call of War has envy-based ads mixed in throughout the game (i.e., you can click on features but get a message that they require premium account membership to utilize them, rather than making those features invisible to the non-premium users).
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • New

      Diabolical wrote:

      You are assuming two things, here: one, that the artillery crew doesn't have spotters in the field to relay the target locations behind a hill, and two, that the artillery isn't above the target, having been place upon the hill. Based on my reasoning, the artillery has the advantage of better visibility of its target as well as a downslope addition to the range and angles beyond same-elevation targeting
      you are assuming a number of things.

      1. that the artillery has enough radio spotters to cover the other side of every mountain

      2. That all mountains have concave slopes and not convex. That there are no plateus or significant changes in elevations and all mountains are shaped like equilateral triangles. Furthermore every field artillery piece can depress their barrels sufficiently to fire down mountain slopes.

      3. That being high on one mountain assures intervisibility around every reentrant, spur and valley.

      4. That every mountain is devoid of trees that mask your ability to observe.

      5. That communications in the HF band are good since VHF and UHF comms are useless in mountainous areas. Or if not then they have set up a decent range of rebroadcast stations all along the mountain range

      6. That every observer has enough batteries to keep him in constant touch with the gun position.

      7. That every observer has sufficient training and map reading ability to take into account the intricacies of firing on targets that a, are on a slope and b are at different elevations to the gun position.

      8. That every gun position has enough ammunition to carry out the various bracketing shots to find the range and then switch to fire for effect.

      9. THat the enemy cannot react fast enough to avoid FFE once it realises that artillery is trying to bracket its position.

      10. The artillery unit's meteorological data is accurate and up to date enough to account for rapidly changing weather on mountains particularly when using high trajectories where the met variables have a great impact on accuracy.

      You are also wrong in that I was not refering to when howitzers were available, I was refering to the employment of spoilers and separate fuse/shell/charge systems for artillery ammunition.

      You are also wrong in thinking that you know more than a former artillery officer with years of training and practical experience including in mountainous terrain.

      Your view of whether the developers prefer more units or modifying existing ones is suspect. We do have rail road guns, rocket propelled interceptors, SP AA, SP AT, SP Artillery, Tac/Strat/Naval bomber. By your logic we should only have Arty, AA, Fighter and bomber. Similarly we would not have nuclear powered equivalents of naval vessels.

      @Quais Duck - your suggestions fail to take into account that fighting in different terrains carries significant advantages and disadvantages for different types of unit. Any fighting in mountains should be hard and slow and where normal units meet specialised mountain units then they should get slaughtered.
      The net effect would mean that fighting in mountains is to be avoided making it extremely defensible terrain and an obstacle to an advancing enemy.

      It all depends on how much realism and complexity the developers want to include in the game really.

      Your point on new players is noted but I believe the solution lies in other areas.
    • New

      Yeah you brought up a lot of good points. I did not really suggest anything though, I did not mean to project such a view. My main point was that the game does not seek to be a simulator, and adding more variables will confuse the new player base.

      I think you have sufficiently covered realism on the other hand though lol, and you're a bona fide horses mouth.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • New

      I have always assumed that the "artillery" unit in CoW was a howitzer, not a field gun, and that firing it was indirect, not direct. In fact indirect fire and the howitzer were the standard for artillery fire in this period, except for specialized guns like AA and AT. Field guns (in this context, defined as: high-explosive direct fire weapons) were mostly obsolete already, though some were still included at the batallion level of infantry units (as opposed to the divisional artillery regiments), notably in the German army.

      @Captain Hurricane, you sure raised some interesting points and problems on artillery use in mountainous terrain, some of which I never realized. Thank you for that. However, several of them apply to ALL terrains (for example, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10) and not specifically to mountains. There ARE also some advantages (like enemy manoevrability and pre-targetting places that an enemy MUST pass; greater efficiency and view range of spotters)

      Finally, the combat values of the units are RELATIVE - which means that if ALL units suffer efficiency, there is no need to adjust them all for terrain. I would hold that infantry, for example, suffers many problems in mountains as well. Armored vehicles just suffer a bit MORE - this is the main reason that the Italians never fielded a decent medium tank; the army specs always said "should be able to fight in mountainous terrain" which made Sherman-, Mark-IV, or T34-style tanks out of the question.
      Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege. - Josef Stalin.
    • New

      there's some differences in terminology here. in the army (British) we refer to two types of arty. 1 is Field arty which tends to be held at a lower level (a brigade asset), general arty is that which is held at Div level and are the largest calibre pieces or nowadays something like MLRS is also thrown into the mix.

      with regards to direct fire we mean firing without the use of coordinates etc i.e. firing directly at a target to your front without the use of observers, usually when tanks are approaching your gun position in a desperate defensive situation. so effectively you are firing by sighting over the barrel.

      most flat plains areas are usually devoted to agricultural use and hence there aren't that many forests, albeit there are occassionally woods here and there. But the majority provides clear lines of fire where only the undulations of the ground give some form of cover, what we refer to as dead ground. This is a dip in the terrain where u cannot see into because of the angle of the slope. manuever units always seek this ground to keep them out of sight.

      The view range of spotters in mountains is often very limited. you can only see to the the other side of the valley 3-4 kms away because the high ground there masks further observation. so in mountainous areas it's very difficult to get long ranges of observation and wide arcs as well.

      If you were on a pyramid overlooking flat plains it's fine but not in the middle of a mountain range. Or in the basket of a balloon observing over the frontlines.


      One of the battlefields were this was pretty key was in Belgium WW1. I visited a hill whose name escapes me now. THink it was known just as Hill 60. It was about 4-5 metres high above flat terrrain and was fiercely fought over due to the fact it confered an advantage to artillery observers. Some 6,000 men died fighting over it. The hills was actually just coal slag from a nearby railway system that had been stockpiled there before the war. 6,000 men died trying to have the right to sit on a heap of coal.
    • New

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      The view range of spotters in mountains is often very limited. you can only see to the the other side of the valley 3-4 kms away because the high ground there masks further observation. so in mountainous areas it's very difficult to get long ranges of observation and wide arcs as well.
      Stuff like this is why US forces have such problems in the mountains of Afghanistan. It is worth noting that even today, US forces have trouble spotting enemy troops even in the same valley. I think the info you can obtain from the document about OP Restrepo highlights this, albeit a brigade moving through the mountains is very different to 3-4 Hajji's setting up a DShK or mortar. Either way, it is very hard to spot targets in mountains.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • New

      There are two independent numbers that can be adjusted: strength and hit points


      Strength to me means accurate targeting, and I think that accurate targeting while driving up a narrow goat path would be difficult to obtain, especially at extreme range.


      If a artillery group was able to dig in and prepare a spot in the mountains I can see that they would be more difficult to find and eliminate, so perhaps more hit points would. E warranted.

      However, Given the narrow road condition I could see arguments that units ambushed on the road would find themselves without options. No room to maneuver except straight up or straight down a thousand foot cliff. In this case it would be like shooting fish in a barrel, so additional hit points make less sense.

      we could debate these points more, but I think we will come back to keeping the status quo.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Senior Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<