Balancing Artillery and Aircraft

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

    • Chet Zwe Han wrote:

      I would like to suggest about the long-ranged units of arty and aircraft units how much they are devastating in the cow game itself. Most of the battles are being decided mainly with those units and moreover the battles are pretty much being defeated decisively as obliterating the enemy with very less casualties which is not very realistic, well it happened in some cases of ww2 but very rare.

      So, I only want to request the change in mechanic of their damage efficiency to reduce as the health of opposing enemy reduced, which means if the artillery can inflict damage hitpoints of 10 then it will inflict 100% damage on the 100%full health units for 1st round of shell and for 2nd time, by reducing some efficiency, will inflict only 80% or 90% damage on 90% health(hitpoints) enemy and so on. Even they continue to bombard the enemy until wiping out, the damage efficiency should be close to 0% to kill the dying unit with 10%health(hitpoint) preventing the elimination of the unit. This should be the same for Tactical and Strats bombers but not Attack bombers and Fighters as they should have better precision on targeting the enemy. And if the damage efficiency keep reducing it will be taking longer and longer and harder and harder for range units to kill the enemy. (Just like the mechanic of lowering damage of deceasing-health units but that will be the opposite one of this mechanic)

      Then, at least artillery and aircraft which are supposed to battlefield supporting units won't be become the main element of the main deciding factor for the outcome of the battle and this setting will also see the increase in more use of infantry and tanks which is supposed to the main frontlines unit or breakthrough units.
      (I am sorry if this idea is already suggested)
      Most people know that more combat deaths in the Russo-Japanese War and First World War were caused by artillery. What's slightly less well known is that this was the same in World War Two.
      Particularly American doctrine involved heavy use of artillery prior to battle, resulting in disproportionately low combat deaths.
      In "Blitzkrieg" type manouevres and cavalry breakthroughs, artillery wasn't used not because it wasn't devastating, but because it took too long to move and to bombard things with. Guderian emphasised this.
      Even at El Alamien, artillery were still used to devastating effect. Same with the Eastern front.
      I do agree that efficiency should be proportional to existing health, though I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the game mechanics.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh
    • Chet described the solution perfectly.

      Indirect area fire from artillery, ships, and bombers does more damage against full strength, concentrated units. As the target loses health, it becomes more dispersed and harder to hit with indirect fire. Damage approaches 0 as the HP of the target approaches 0.
    • Yes it would make a lot of sense. In the end you can wipe out a damaged infantry in melee combat with your artillery division, but it should not be possible to use this supporting military unit(artillery) to kill everything from far away. At least it should survive and revolt (give up/change side/disperse), if the command decides to let their infantry division without help over a longer period.
      Hier könnt Ihr ein Support-Ticket erstellen. :00000450:

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

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Exactly. As the unit approaches 0% health, there are a few guys hiding in ditches. Cannon shells have almost no chance of hitting anyone. Same for hitting the last tank, etc. Ships are the obvious exception.
      So you are suggesting this as an improvement? This would be like a SBDE for HP, but negative. So you want someone with 50% hp to actually have 40% HP?
    • DxC wrote:

      So you are suggesting this as an improvement? This would be like a SBDE for HP, but negative. So you want someone with 50% hp to actually have 40% HP?

      No, I want indirect bombardment (artillery, rockets, and bombers) to do relatively more damage against large unit formations, compared to small formations that are spread thin over an area.

      A division camped out in a city will take more damage from a bombing run than a brigade, or a company, or a single surviving soldier, hiding out in a city of the same size.

      Trying to explain the same idea in different ways. I'm doing a really bad job of getting the point across :)
    • It should do a percentual damage to the HP of the target stack rather than an absolute number, is what you are saying. And I basically agree, though I also think the collateral damage range would need to be increased to prevent the meta of always splitting your army in all 1-stacks as soon as the enemy has artillery. Air patrolling already has this, possibly a similar mechanism?

      Another version might be that you can't range-damage units after they are under (say) 30% of their HP.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • Moss20 wrote:

      Heinrici wrote:

      Arty is too powerful and shoot and scoot is unrealistic. How to fix both with something that seems implementable?
      Give Arty Patrol circles like planes have but make the patrol time 30 minutes or even 1 hour. Arty could use its full strength when in a stack in direct combat.

      Bombers. Patrolling is no longer used. Bombers must direct attack. Airfield level 1 should have 1 hour refueling. No patrolling and the longer refuels make ranked airbases much better. This would give needed depth to the air game.

      So, I guess I'm saying Bombers and Arty should swap patrolling mechanic with longer patrol time on top of it.

      Another idea would be that Arty needs to convert to a convoy to move like planes with a 30min conversion to the truck, then 30 mins to convert back from truck to Arty. The idea of all these guns running around in enemy territory is so ridiculous. I see stacks of Art and AA running rampant over the entire map, in reality they need to be protected by real troops.
      Another idea would be that Arty needs to convert to a convoy to move like planes with a 30min conversion to the truck, then 30 mins to convert back from truck to Arty. The idea of all these guns running around in enemy territory is so ridiculous. I see stacks of Art and AA running rampant over the entire map, in reality they need to be protected by real troops.
      @freezy this is actually a very very smart suggestion. I like the idea of artillery being towed. Maybe not 30 mins, though. I would opt for 15 mins.
      I would also give range like artillery for AA but also it has to be towed. This is not a bad idea at all.
      I remember a game of old days where they had an entrenchment factor, each turn would add to the capacity of the troops. this is logical, tanks need to camouflage and position strategically, even more so for infantry which will make not fortifications but will entrench themselves, so does every unit to blend in to the surroundings, also IRL.

      Deployment is an option, but something lkike SP-anti air is almost directly active, I know, I served on one.

      Also experience of a unit was important in said game, improving the strikingpower as a consequence. (or deployability), Fire and forget strategies become less important. But to just implement one of these is a work of art if the game needs to remain balanced.
    • The Warsaw Pact wrote:

      I would say artillery should do more damage to infantry, then we can remove rocket artillery.

      Rocket artillery is completely useless apart from taking away from arty.

      I would think artillery is more effective at tearing apart humans than tearing through metal
      Air burst artillery shells were developed around the middle of WWII and they do have a dramatic impact on infantry. Perhaps with higher levels of research the damage to infantry could improve to reflect this.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • I'm all for a system of gradual defense increase when infantry-type troops stand still in a province. It might be like, standard defense is equal to attack (they're basically marching and that is a vulnerable moment), and then use the "healing" type system (i.e. less and less results) to work up to +100% over a full day or so.

      This would also work well for realism. Infantry is WAY too effective in mobile situations in this game. They can ALMOST keep up with the mobile guys, especially in rough terrain. Nothing like the real life, where a marching man does 5 km/h and an armored car's top speed is around 100 km/h. I understand the gameplay reasons for this (there's no campaign lulls here), but the infantry dancing around the battlefield also doesn't feel right sometimes. Adding a bonus to being in one place, while not limiting movement speed you can ALSO choose to use, this might be a beauty of a solution... "Forever" garrisons in forts might actually work as a line of defense.

      Maybe AA defense should also be included in this way?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.