Criticism of Artillery

Coastal and Rail way guns need to be either brought in, or buffed. This game misses vital parts of weapon tree's and often leaves players with no strategic defence

My words exactly.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Hardly, the artillery in this game is way OP thanks to it's range. It most certainly should not be 50km.

BTW, 20 Miles is roughly 32 kilometers. And if your forces are moving fast, that 50 km range will only hit once or twice before your forces reach them and negate their advantage (unless they've been properly positioned BEHIND your enemy's front line).

Anyway, due to the range vs. accuracy vs. strength vs. total shots fired per hour (which is only ONCE per hour), that distance rating is highly UNREALISTIC in that it is TOO SHORT. The artillery range would be fine if they were to increase the rate of fire to that of patrolling aircraft and this would make more sense when considering the potential of a target moving towards them.

Oh, and the 4 times per hour patrol rule is such that the hits are at a fourth of the strength rating so the damage is reduced but the cumulative effect can be greater if you are lucky enough to hit at least 3 times per hour which would be a greater than 50% odds which I suspect is the natural universal starting odds for all combat before all other factors creep in.

You make damn good points.

I agree, I think Artillery is in need of a slight buff, to bring them more online with Aircraft. Artillery should have field support uses, not just for besieging forts.

Thanks to @Diabolical I am in support of this idea and will stick one of my screensavers on here.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Hardly, the artillery in this game is way OP thanks to it's range. It most certainly should not be 50km.

TankBuster wrote:

Coastal and Rail way guns need to be either brought in, or buffed. This game misses vital parts of weapon tree's and often leaves players with no strategic defence

Be careful what you wish for in regard to arties - you dont want a repeat process of Supremacy1914 - where its basically the one with the most arties, wins. I like them the way they are, and still build them aplenty.

edit: I do support the railgun buff though, would see them more in action. I like the unit, but often find it hard to justify the research and high build costs (dont get me started about the insane upkeep)

What a lot of you guys seem to be not understanding is naval ships used to the same principles as field artillery or any artillery in WW2 for that matter. Battleships were capable of firing over the horizon, with the use of a spotter of course. Now if we consider the fact that MOST and I say most not ALL artillery crews had spotters or at least would be given coordinates (which naval ships used too). Both field and naval artillery would aim and find targets in the same way. Have you ever been in a main battery of a warship? I've been in 4 separate ships and let me tell you. you cant see jack, target coordinates would be sent down to the gunners and they would have to adjust the turret accordingly. which is exactly what field artillery do except they're not locked in a metal box. Now of course there is direct fire but a large percentage of the time naval battles would involve a lot of indirect salvos in the hope that one shell would land. Lets also realize one hit on a ship even a mighy battleship is enough to sink her if it lands in the right place. As a previous post said as well it would be unwise for stationary artillery to be within direct few of a mobile ship. Now that we have that out of the way we come to field artillery attacking naval units. If we assume that they have a spotter than hitting the ship won't be much of a problem as firing a gun from land makes no difference than if it was fired from a ship. We do though have the difference in power. the heaviest of field artillery match that of a standard cruiser (which still packed quite a punch), enough to sink any ship with enough hits). Now if we take all this into account we come to the realization that the only difference between the two for the most part is that one is in the water and one is on land. To sum this all up I agree that artillery should get a boost in naval attack perhaps even to the extent of them being equal to a destroyer in damage. Sorry for any points I missed or spelling errors, I wrote this on no sleep at 6am.

miech wrote:

Be careful what you wish for in regard to arties - you dont want a repeat process of Supremacy1914 - where its basically the one with the most arties, wins. I like them the way they are, and still build them aplenty.

edit: I do support the railgun buff though, would see them more in action. I like the unit, but often find it hard to justify the research and high build costs (dont get me started about the insane upkeep)

Kollin wrote:

Battleships were capable of firing over the horizon, with the use of a spotter of course.

I suggest one of two things:

1. Adding artillery not as a unit in itself, but as a support weapon integrated into infantry divisions. So, you would research artillery, but you can't actually build them. They'd just be automatically integrated in your infantry divisions, giving them extra firepower (but the infantry can't fire at range). It's similar to the HoI4 idea. However, the idea is that researching artillery would make your divisions go slower, and that SPA would not slow down your divisions, but would be integrated in your divisions in the same way.
2. The other way I can think of is way more simple. I think the arty range is ok. Just give them a much needed firepower buff.

yup,

Arty was not used against naval vessels, if so it was a desperate move and for the most part ineffective.

to use Arty vs navy is a flaw in tactics tbh ... lol

Pablo22510 wrote:

It's similar to the HoI4 idea

Quasi-duck wrote:

You make damn good points.

Each point is carefully formed from a secret recipe with all the right ingredients and just a little bit of . Then, I use a cooler oven to give my points more time to rise just right, without having to worry about my points collapsing in on themselves.

Then, while they're hot and fresh, I like to serve a few of my points right out of the oven -- as fresh as can be . The rest of my points are left to cool and then I place those points in an air-tight container to maintain freshness for several weeks while I pull a few points out every once in a while for family and friends.

If I make a hardier version of my points, I may freeze some of them and they usually remain as pretty good points for up to six months that way. But after too long, my points could get stale and become irrelevant, so I always label my points so as to avoid serving any of my points once they've gone bitter or have soured . Those points are useless and wind up in the trash -- a waste of the ingredients. So I always try to make only enough points as are needed for the time being.

Kollin wrote:

Sorry for any points I missed or spelling errors, I wrote this on no sleep at 6am.

Kollin wrote:

Lets also realize one hit on a ship even a mighy battleship is enough to sink her if it lands in the right place.

Kollin wrote:

firing a gun from land makes no difference than if it was fired from a ship.

Firing from land means you don't have to worry about even the slightest of movements affecting your precision aim.

Firing from the sea means you can fire from different positions without having to disassemble your equipment for general stability.

yin and yang, I guess.

Kollin wrote:

the heaviest of field artillery match that of a standard cruiser (which still packed quite a punch), enough to sink any ship with enough hits).

This also seems dubious. A railroad gun might be able to match that of just one of a cruiser's or even a battleship's main guns, but artillery are -- at best -- like the secondary guns on a cruiser or battleship. A battleship is a mobile fortress, typically, with nine or twelve gigantic guns each with independent aiming systems and the firepower of a railroad gun. So a battleship is like having a dozen railroad guns that move around as a team while at sea.

Don't mess with the battleship.

On the other hand, a railroad gun represents a team and/or group of railroad guns, so I think that unit should have it's firepower raised substantially. It's time to justify it's existence in the game once and for all. I say raise it's bombardment by at least 10 points in each category and no category should be rated at less than 15.

The railroad gun's speed is slow enough to make them possible to be avoided, so this much greater firepower is perfectly justifiable. For that matter, the at-sea bombardment capabilities of battleships should be raised a few points for each level, also.

von wrote:

yup,

Arty was not used against naval vessels, if so it was a desperate move and for the most part ineffective.

to use Arty vs navy is a flaw in tactics tbh ... lol

mio123 wrote:

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

Quasi-duck wrote:

Kollin wrote:

Battleships were capable of firing over the horizon, with the use of a spotter of course.

More common though was direct fire. Not indirect, like artillery, as there is no cover at sea. Usually.

In WWII, it was common to find an enemy at the very edge of the horizon and the battle would ensue. If the target was under-classed, it would try to escape, thus leading many battles to extend over the horizon before coming to an end.

von wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

I suggest one of two things:

1. Adding artillery not as a unit in itself, but as a support weapon integrated into infantry divisions. So, you would research artillery, but you can't actually build them. They'd just be automatically integrated in your infantry divisions, giving them extra firepower (but the infantry can't fire at range). It's similar to the HoI4 idea. However, the idea is that researching artillery would make your divisions go slower, and that SPA would not slow down your divisions, but would be integrated in your divisions in the same way.
2. The other way I can think of is way more simple. I think the arty range is ok. Just give them a much needed firepower buff.

2, however, is spot on. Huzzah and hurray for number 2.! Let's all go take a dump with number 2 because 2 is better than 1. TWO-getherness is far better than being al-ONE.

Diabolical wrote:

That depends a lot on the power of the shot taken. A hail of a million rifle bullets, even if they hit the exact same spot on the side of a ship in sequence, will never sink it. Also, I know of no case in history where a single shot fired from even the biggest guns on a battleship has ever sank another big ship by itself.

Diabolical wrote:

This also seems dubious. A railroad gun might be able to match that of just one of a cruiser's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/155_mm_Long_Tom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_155mm_GPF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_8-inch_howitzer_Mk_VI_%E2%80%93_VIII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_M%C3%B6rser_18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_M%C3%B6rser_16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/203_mm_howitzer_M1931_(B-4)

These guns outclass or at least match the cruiser classes North Hampton, Cleveland, Portland, Leander, Town, Arethusa to name just a few. Also these gun were widely used and are just a small example of land artillery that was larger than naval.

As for you mention of railway guns, some far outclassed naval guns, a prime example is the Schwerer Gustav which had a caliber of 31.5 In" or the Karl-Gerät with a caliber of 24 in". While the largest gun to EVER be mounted on a ship was only 18.1 in, this cannon was fitted to the Japanese battleship Yamato and Musashi

As far as when I said it makes no difference on land or sea I meant that the damage of a weapon stays the same.

Also for those who think railguns should be more powerful against naval units I agree, the Schwerer Gustav would have been capable of taking ANY and I MEAN ANY ship out with 1 hit, 2 at the absolute most. It was capable of going through 3 feet of armor plate, Which was mostly on the side of ships and 22 feet of solid concrete, no match for the wooden decks of naval ships.