Reviewing from many sources about WWI, I just thought that long range weapons in this game (Artys, Railguns, Cruisers and Battleships) are truly overpowered, with the ability of decimating entire armies with much ease and without compromising other units in the fight (infantry, cavalry, tanks, etc.)
Although I recognize artilleries and other long range weapons were truly essential in that war, I found, in some way, unrealistic that fights can be decided by player's ability to build and use as many artys as possible and to neutralize enemy's artys. Since most of the battles fought in World War I were mainly combats between soldiers and tanks AFTER artilleries and other long range units barrage, my idea is to handicap those units' damage against those short range units.
In other words, while long range units still would have the power to destroy enemy units, they'll lose effectiveness progressively as those units are reduced from army groups to armies and corps, whatever the number of long range units used in those attacks, until being useless against divisions and brigades, since such low quantity of men can protect themselves against that fire power, hence compelling the player to use short range units to destroy the enemy force.
Of course, other features of those long range units (damage against air force or buildings) will remain unaltered.
Greetings.
Mechs are already underpowered. In former times you could kill 50 infantry units with 50 artilleries, now you fire and at least 9 of 15 units survive the first shot. I think the long range units need more power instead of less power!
JuliusMVMechs are already underpowered. In former times you could kill 50 infantry units with 50 artilleries, now you fire and at least 9 of 15 units survive the first shot. I think the long range units need more power instead of less power!
Still, you can destroy all those units with only arties. No infantry/cavalry/AC/tanks needed whatsoever unless for the sake to protect your own arties.
Artillery was always important in a war, but in this point it's the only thing you need to conquer provinces, completely far from the practice of combine artillery with infantry attacks, as that was made in WWI.
As it's today, short ranged units are in the match solely to enter in the city as a military parade, with musical band and whatelse.
I'ld say there is only one change necesary for Artilleries: after & before movement they would require an hour of deployment/packing time.
This would stop the hyper-activity (ab)use of artillery. And make the game more strategic, as i think it is intended to be?
DemonaireStill, you can destroy all those units with only arties. No infantry/cavalry/AC/tanks needed whatsoever unless for the sake to protect your own arties.
Artillery was always important in a war, but in this point it's the only thing you need to conquer provinces, completely far from the practice of combine artillery with infantry attacks, as that was made in WWI.
As it's today, short ranged units are in the match solely to enter in the city as a military parade, with musical band and whatelse.
Hello to paragraph user
50 Heavy Tanks vs 50 arty and inf to shield winner is? the 50 Heavy Tanks ups. Arty solo now day since 3 Mounts are useless then it was before 2 points to that .
1 we have perfect here explained:
JuliusMVMechs are already underpowered. In former times you could kill 50 infantry units with 50 artilleries, now you fire and at least 9 of 15 units survive the first shot. I think the long range units need more power instead of less power!
Second the used of Heavy tanks what in past were limited is free,how was limited were simple before 3 Mounts you had the same resurses cost like today and you had to use for every 1 Heavy Tank adisionary prints in number of 20 what removed at same time the whell was removed make the Heavy Tank best and strongest army. 50 Heavy Tanks my paragraph friend around 500 arty even kill them o.o and make arty solo in your post win?
Enforcer(Angel of Death)
MacdouweI'ld say there is only one change necesary for Artilleries: after & before movement they would require an hour of deployment/packing time.
This would stop the hyper-activity (ab)use of artillery. And make the game more strategic, as i think it is intended to be?
Artilleries aren't trebuchets, or at least not the AOE ones. That's why, I think, it wasn't implemented the packing/deployment time until now.
I'ld say sticking to reality would become an extremely complex story.
My main motivation is the love for strategy. Strategy and not tactics are the cornerstone of Supremacy for me.
With Artillery as it is in the game now, tactics are way too important. Often even countering a much stronger strategy
you can always reduce speed, range of tsngr units or reload time ( every 2 hours?)
I like arty they slow down stacks . 99% of players use/know only S&S so it is easy to predict their movements , flank them, encircle and kill with faster units.
If you learn how to defeat S&S players with new strategy you will win most/99% of wars. There is at least 1 strategy that allows you to spend 10x less time in game and still kill 10x bigger arty armies .
Keep looking demonaire and let them waste time on the obsolete S&S strategy
most ppl use 1 or 2 army not a mixt of them or no clue counter efficent what a other unit make to late or not at all. Arty solo won't win anything they only nice kills in a good player KD be distroying the enemy army.
Enforcer(Angel of Death)
Golden Frieza,
as a player who has not been around for 5 years, care to enlighten me with this "new strategy" that obliterates an army that contains 10x more artillery?
Let's say your opponent has 25 artillery and you have 8. How does your strategy solves this?
Golden Frieza,
I just noticed in another topic you are mainly speaking of 500 player maps.
That is an entirely different game compared to the 10 player maps I prefer.
My comments would, in my opinion, improve 10-31 playermaps alot.
And have small to no impact on the later stage of the game in 100-500 player maps.
You can win ever map 10-30-100-500 what right army if know how mixt army can win even your 8 arty vs 25 . What right army win us 8
Enforcer(Angel of Death)
I'm starting to understand why almost nobody use this forum...
MacdouweI'm starting to understand why almost nobody use this forum...
and here example why I told can win easy against arty if more then if have they right I killed 1 day only in 500 map over 1,4k arty of the enemy what my airforce he had 0 airforce so easy win. After 1 day he arhived that map leaving 400 city to take. Is not about army you,is how you use that army and how mixt it.
Enforcer(Angel of Death)
for me it is all about time. I do not have time to play small maps because only rush strategies work there.
in 500 it is hard to find working rush( maybe except golden rush). That is perfect map for someone without a time but with skills.
How to defeat artillery without artillery- standard question for alliance games 5 vs 5. It does not matter how long your enemy sits and how many arts he have if he is not able to build them. So you go for quick win strategies - either Cavs or Cars. Before CAVs only Cars mattered. There is couple of other strategies how to win this maps but they have nothing to do with units so no point in talking about them. All you need to know is that I took part in couple of alliance games with both sides active on he same level and win on points was achieved in 7-8 days.
I already said that I was able to defeat enemy on the map 31 who was couple times bigger and stronger without using single shooting unit. Arts are to slow to fight certain types of troops .The faster you will create you own strategy against arts- the better for you. Tank on Europe 10 is worth more than a tank on 500. Same with other mechs. Make sure art cannot escape and you have it. Every S&S player is afraid if he cannot withdraw his arts.
Problem with arts IMHO is different. It doesnt matter how good player you are- if you have more activity and you can S&S when enemy is afk - you should win. I saw twice in europe 10 map how guy with 1 country S&Sed rest of europe under 5 other players who were from a same alliance. In both cases overative players had no understending of strategy or advanced mechanic. They knew S&S and they sat longer in a game. That was enough to win both alliance games with much better opponents lacking activity.
Arts are more important in hands of active player than in hands of inactive player like me. That is why I do not use them. If you build arts to fights arts you have to be sure you are sitting longer. If not- they are waste of oil. The best idea is not to use them at all and use oil for something that suits your activity and strategy more.
Hey Frieza. I think you and me think alike 
I was just assuming all sides being extremely active & skilled
At that point, just like in any other RTS, you have to focus on the highest impact unit which is relatively cheap and can be built relatively soon.
So you end up with artillery rushing however you play it.
AFTER that initial rush, I fully agree with what your saying though
I won one of the league maps where it was 10 againsteach other - using onlyCAVs. CAVs rush worked better and faster than arty rush but losses were around 10-20% higher than players with arts.
But if you play russia you do not care about grain.
player 1 attacks player 2 with cavs
player 3 mops up player 1 & 2
if you do not use diplomacy it is you against the world,
if you use diplomacy you have at least twice times less enemies
again, I am talking about high level games were everyone is aware of that.
I have a feeling the topic kind of moved offtopic a bit. Arty has it's use cases, cav and tanks have their usecases. Depending on how you play you focus on one of both or on a mix. But that's a totally different discussion
To reply on the original discussion "should arty be reduced in power" I disagree. The only thing I'd personally would like to see removed is SnS, But also that is a different discussion. In supremacy the theoretical right use of Arty is behind a line of infantry (or other units) which is exactly how it was done in WWI, huge artillery fire days before the attack between units. Offcourse arty had limited effect on the enemy because they had bunkers to hide in during this barrages.
If you'd want to make it more realistic you should allow trenches and bunkers to be build on infantry locations. and those would be damaged by arty with only limited unit loses... However that would slow down the game heavily, a standing trench was in WWI almost impossible to take without arty covering and smoothing up that trenches defence. However don't forget WWI was a war with months of fighting over several meters of land due to this relation between the high defence of trenches (combined with machine guns) and the rather ineffectiveness of arty against these trench networks. Do we really want to make S1914 more stalemate defence war of attrition wait game? A true realistic WWI game sounds a bit boring.
Arty had it'smain use in destroying fortifications, because the arty in these didn't reach far enough to fight the offensive arty, they were outdated but without arty to destroy those fortresses they'd be rather impossible to take. That was the original use of arty not killing units indeed but destroying the defense of these units. Reducing their effectivness without giving them their use against other defences (e.g. trenches) would render them rather useless or only usefull against city forts and upgrades. But implementing that realistic relation would make the game slower paced to my opinion so not more fun either.
