Criticism of Artillery

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

    • Criticism of Artillery

      This NEW thread was the appropriate place to put this "Suggestions/Criticisms".

      OK, so WHY OH WHY is the artillery so weak on naval bombardment?

      And, as if that were bad enough, it starts at 0.3 on Level 1 and doesn't go up with each level...not even a little bit.

      And, as bad as THAT was, the lower three levels are 0.3 while the upper two levels are 0.2.

      I don't like to use bad language but...WTF?!?

      It should be this:

      Level 1 ... 0.3

      Level 2 ... 0.4
      Level 3 ... 0.6
      Level 4 ... 0.8
      Level 5 ... 1.0

      That seems like a more reasonable strength progression rather than actually getting worse.
      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.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Wwell if it's broke, then somebody fix 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.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • thats a good topic to discuss in my opinion artillerie must have better stats against naval units
      this will alow to build large coastal defences and to secure key positions
      the artillerie has also been used in real conflicts to assum these roles
      The Gallipoli battle during the WW1
      The Atlantic wall (even if it wasn't actualy field artillery witch is an other reason to upgrade de artillerie stats rather than adding more units)
      and many more minor defensive structures or battles
      to sum up artillery should be more powerful against naval units
      Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III

    • The artillery is a unit capable of causing great damage, is a vital unit in long campaigns.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.

    • Maximilien wrote:

      The artillery is a unit capable of causing great damage, is a vital unit in long campaigns
      Now if it could just be a vital unit in naval bombardment...
      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.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      This NEW thread was the appropriate place to put this "Suggestions/Criticisms".

      OK, so WHY OH WHY is the artillery so weak on naval bombardment?

      And, as if that were bad enough, it starts at 0.3 on Level 1 and doesn't go up with each level...not even a little bit.

      And, as bad as THAT was, the lower three levels are 0.3 while the upper two levels are 0.2.

      I don't like to use bad language but...WTF?!?

      It should be this:

      Level 1 ... 0.3

      Level 2 ... 0.4
      Level 3 ... 0.6
      Level 4 ... 0.8
      Level 5 ... 1.0

      That seems like a more reasonable strength progression rather than actually getting worse.
      well the unit doesnt always improve .3 or .2 damage.. to navy..

      its not consistent increase..


      otherwise..
      maybe an increase in naval damage..



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • Well, consider that Arty has always been split into three general types, the game seems to think that all arty is field made up of field guns. The drop in stats comes from the changing ammunition to something more useful against Armour and infantry, and that only an idiot would engage ships with normally Arty. You have Railway guns for that- all be it that those are also incredibly stupid.

      What the post high lights is a need for coastal arty, which of course, should be coming.
      "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian

      "Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher

      "The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher

      Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW

      Game Username: LordStark01

    • TankBuster wrote:

      Well, consider that Arty has always been split into three general types, the game seems to think that all arty is field made up of field guns. The drop in stats comes from the changing ammunition to something more useful against Armour and infantry, and that only an idiot would engage ships with normally Arty. You have Railway guns for that- all be it that those are also incredibly stupid.

      What the post high lights is a need for coastal arty, which of course, should be coming
      Naval units, usually out range the art guns anyway...

      to be honest, Railguns are all you should be using against Naval units from land...

      Art guns are just not suited..



      also.. Tnakbuster is bang on the money..
      not all of the art are the same..

      Would we like more variation in the game? for art



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • railgun should have 5 dm against ships, with it's long range and it's cost, it will be the key of a coastal defence
      artilleri should have 5 too but only to secure key positions or destroying landing units
      Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III

    • mio123 wrote:

      railgun should have 5 dm against ships, with it's long range and it's cost, it will be the key of a coastal defence
      artilleri should have 5 too but only to secure key positions or destroying landing units
      I agree with the rail gun bump..
      not with the art..



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • Diabolical wrote:

      Now if it could just be a vital unit in naval bombardment...
      Perhaps.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.

    • Artillery is for indirect fire and ships move. Just look at Dunkirk, not even JU-87 Stuka dive-bombers, which can effectively hit tanks and the like on the move, could not hit the ships.

      Ships are long and narrow. They move fast. Slow, indirect artillery fire will not knock them out. On top of that, shells are generally HE, not AP.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Artillery is for indirect fire and ships move. Just look at Dunkirk, not even JU-87 Stuka dive-bombers, which can effectively hit tanks and the like on the move, could not hit the ships.

      Ships are long and narrow. They move fast. Slow, indirect artillery fire will not knock them out. On top of that, shells are generally HE, not AP.
      Ah, but ships tend not to come "AT" the coast when near to it...rather they turn sideways to bring all main guns to bear for bombardment. Since these ships then can move parallel with the coast, they do make a slowly moving target. But, their broad profile is the widest possible target.

      It is assumed that most artillery crews have probably been trained to switch ammunition from High Explosive to Armor Piercing for the task...too bad they didn't conceive of delayed explosive Tank Buster designs since that concept would work on heavy armored plating for a battleship. Except the ammunition of this kind would have to be fired from something like a Railroad Gun anyway since that would have to be HUGE bullets.

      Oh, and High Explosives work fine on the top of the decks.
      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.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Ah, but ships tend not to come "AT" the coast when near to it...rather they turn sideways to bring all main guns to bear for bombardment. Since these ships then can move parallel with the coast, they do make a slowly moving target. But, their broad profile is the widest possible target.
      Haha, checkmate. You're thinking of direct fire while artillery tend to use indirect fire.


      Direct fire would be what a tank would do, while indirect is what a mortar would do.


      Artillery use indirect fire because they can do it from behind an object, or in a firing pit, without taking direct fire. If they tried to use direct fire against any warship they would be destroyed.


      Look how big the area in which a shell can land is in the below image.


      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • That's a funny thing...because my grandfather was a long-range artillery trainer. His job was to teach other soldiers how to perform precision aiming of the 16 mile guns and his ranges could be nearly 20 miles with pin-point accuracy. All they had to have was a camouflaged forward spotter to help with range-finding and target realignment. That wide-area bombardment effect was only mainly used for suppression fire against a field of incoming forces or to prevent advanced retaliation when sending in your own invasion.

      So, by castling with my rook, I've avoided your checkmate and positioned for a bishop cross maneuver.

      My strategy outweighs your technical drawings.

      ;-]
      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.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • but you forgot the Gallipoli naval battle, whene the british plan was to cut the supply line in the sea by capturing the Dardanelle, all the ottoman had to do was to reinforce the coast with their artillery and mine the position
      the ships where slow and making hudge targets for the ottoman who didn't use any AP ammo, all they hade to do was to aim high, the canonball hit the ship deck and not the armored sides
      Let's Agree To Disagree! Boris the Animal It's Just Boris! Men In Black III

    • Diabolical wrote:

      So, by castling with my rook, I've avoided your checkmate and positioned for a bishop cross maneuver.

      My strategy outweighs your technical drawings.
      Ah yes, artillery fire is a complicated thing. A Forward Operator completely changes everything. With a FO, artillery fire can be zeroed in properly.

      My train of thought has been derailed through a series of events. Phooey.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • I like this idea, and agree. I think artillery are nerfed all around, and need some little tweaks.
      Carl Wilson

      “Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
      ― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue

      "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
      Bernard Law Montgomery, British general

    • Carl Wilson wrote:

      I think artillery are nerfed all around, and need some little tweaks.
      Perhaps.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.