Criticism of Artillery

Diabolical 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.

I hate number 1, no offense, but taking away the arty and merging with infantry...no, just...no.

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.

arty is mediocre early/mid game , building them in late game is a bad idea , armies require to stop while firing those artyes , that means ure just a siting duck for enemy rockets

Funske wrote:

arty is mediocre early/mid game , building them in late game is a bad idea , armies require to stop while firing those artyes , that means ure just a siting duck for enemy rockets

Paramunac wrote:

Funske wrote:

arty is mediocre early/mid game , building them in late game is a bad idea , armies require to stop while firing those artyes , that means ure just a siting duck for enemy rockets

You are wrong in many aspects. Unit will stop to fire, but then it can move for another 59 minutes and fire again, so they are not slow. And saying that artillery is a bad is not true. You just need to use it properly.

Diabolical wrote:

but maybe SP-Arties shouldn't have the extra boost to coast defense.

Hey, I'm just shooting from the hip, here. It's up to the people who pay attention to the historical portion to figure out the exact particulars of strength. I'm just thinking about the programming and game play practicalities.

The numbers you are hinting at are unimportant to the discussion. My point only is that -- for game play purposes -- it may not make sense to let SP-Arties have the same boosted coastal strength because they are a forward defensive weapon and not be carrying coastal defensive ammo with them whereas regular arties would if they were staying back to defend the coast.

The coast is fixed, but there's sea and land everywhere. Coastals would only need to defend that thin line dividing the two spheres of power.

You do know that it is AP used for anti-ship duties and SPA commonly had AP shells in case tanks and the like attacked, right?

Caesar wrote:

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

Not A Communist wrote:

Caesar wrote:

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

This is just not true in this game, it's in no way a vital unit in long campaigns, infact it sucks pretty bad throughout the whole game. So much better to mass produce bombers. I agree that artillery and railguns need to be buffed.

It confuses me that Arty is so weak, along with Railroad guns- the Germans had a field day with those! The legendary cross channel duels being great fun for both sides! Coastal guns, which everyone made use of, need to also be implemented.

I think Arty needs a hefty boost, other wise its a completely wasted unit like naval bombers.

Quasi-duck wrote:

You do know that it is AP used for anti-ship duties and SPA commonly had AP shells in case tanks and the like attacked, right?

I know nothing of the sort. What I do know is that -- for practicality purposes in gameplay and game maintenance, it would be better to just add stronger Anti-Ship functionality to Arties only. SPA's maybe should get a different boost in some other area, like against infantry. That way, you don't just graduate from building Arties to SPA's. I'd rather keep building both with each having a specialty. At the same time, I'd like not to add yet another gun for the coastal bombardment.

However, we could solve this whole thing much easier if we were to just give Fortresses a built-in artillery functionality based on the level of the fortress. And that could include a stronger Anti-Ship capability. This would pair well with my built-in AA capabilities that I've requested for Fortresses, also.

I would REALLY like to see Fortresses improved with weaponization of them.

Problem solved.

TankBuster wrote:

I think Arty needs a hefty boost, other wise its a completely wasted unit like naval bombers.

Secondly, I totally disagree about the naval bombers. When employed according to their strengths, they can be quite powerful. The only real problem is that most folks won't research them or research them much. And, once researched, most won't build more than a token few.

Perhaps "sweetening the deal" could make them a little more favored. For one thing, they need to add a "Long term patrol" feature to Naval Bombers. Since a naval bomber would typically have pontoons, it would stand to reason that one could give them long range fuel tanks. Then, instead of a normal patrol, they would have the special option to do a one-way-only "hopping" patrol between two airbases/carriers.

Thus, instead of a radial patrol area, they'd have an elongated pill-shaped patrol area connecting their start and end points. Along the way, they can have way-point destinations on water route intersections (i.e., up to 3 water spots) between the start and end of their flight. That would represent water landings to rest a bit while waiting between segments for equipment checks, pilot naps, refueling from spare tanks, etc. Each water landing would require a 10 minute rest.

And, maybe the level of the bomber would determine the number of water hops it can take. Thus, level 1 has 0 hops (no one way patrols). A level 2 would have 1 hop, thus it would enable a one-way patrol with a start and an destination, though not on water. A level 3 would have 2 hops, thus it would enable a one-way patrol with a start, an destination, and 1 waypoint (which can be on water or at an airbase). A level 4 would have 3 hops, thus it would enable a one-way patrol with a start, an destination, and [upto] 2 waypoints. Levels 5 and 6 would each add one more waypoint per level thus having a maxed out naval bomber being able to have up to 4 waypoints between it's start and destination.

Level ... one-way mission enabled? ... number of waypoints

1 ........ N ................................ n/a

2 ........ Y ................................ 0

3 ........ Y ................................ 1

4 ........ Y ................................ 2

5 ........ Y ................................ 3

6 ........ Y ................................ 4

To further sweeten the deal with Naval Bombers, don't decrease the range bonuses for the higher levels. Thus, with a higher level Naval Bomber, it could perform a One-Way mission across larger expanses of ocean between continents or island hopping across the Pacific. Therefore, a Naval bomber could cross the Pacific from Japan to Guam to Hawaii to Los Angeles without carriers or convoying and in the time it takes to fly that distance while stopping at each waypoint and airbase for rest between segments of the flight.

One more thing: Because the waypoint idea is for at-sea flights, the mission would only act like a level 2 bomber in hops between missions from one airbase to another. In other words, the one-way mission would need to be endless hops over land. The water waypoints are for Naval Bombers exclusively.

However, the idea of a one-way patrol should also be allowed for other aircraft between two or more airbases and/or carriers (if they can land on a carrier).

Diabolical wrote:

I'd rather keep building both with each having a specialty

Arty shoud act as glass cannons , better dmg whyle attacking on range , no dmg , or a huge dmg penalty when attacking in close combat . actual arty dmg , compared to tacs dmg , makes me cry and laugh at same time

Funske wrote:

Arty shoud act as glass cannons , better dmg whyle attacking on range , no dmg , or a huge dmg penalty when attacking in close combat . actual arty dmg , compared to tacs dmg , makes me cry and laugh at same time

After all, an artillery can shoot at point-blank range. I would not want to stand in front of one when they lower that barrel parallel to the ground. In that case, it basically has the same offense as a tank with the same barrel. The only difference is that they are easier to capture by infantry.

I wonder if coastal artillery can have a negative elevation to shoot down from a cliff onto the sea -- or a beach -- maybe like in the Battle of Normandy?

Diabolical wrote:

Funske wrote:

Arty shoud act as glass cannons , better dmg whyle attacking on range , no dmg , or a huge dmg penalty when attacking in close combat . actual arty dmg , compared to tacs dmg , makes me cry and laugh at same time

Actually, Artillery's advantage IS wiped out when the enemy reaches it. The damage numbers might be the same, but the fact that they are damaged in return makes their damage-causing rating diminished in the course of the battle.

After all, an artillery can shoot at point-blank range. I would not want to stand in front of one when they lower that barrel parallel to the ground. In that case, it basically has the same offense as a tank with the same barrel. The only difference is that they are easier to capture by infantry.

I wonder if coastal artillery can have a negative elevation to shoot down from a cliff onto the sea -- or a beach -- maybe like in the Battle of Normandy?

Artys can act as tanks , but they are incredbly innacurate at low range and reloading those huge caliber guns takes ages .

Diabolical wrote:

In that case, it basically has the same offense as a tank with the same barrel.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

In that case, it basically has the same offense as a tank with the same barrel.

What are you on about!? A tank has a machine gun for anti-infantry duties, when charging an artillery cannon just weave. Even if you do get killed by a massive shell, your buddies will be able to take it during the massive reload time. This is why at the Battle of the Bulge an artillery unit that was attacked by German troops used rifles, not their cannons.

Perhaps you didn't read my next sentence within the same paragraph...see below:

Diabolical wrote:

The only difference is that they are easier to capture by infantry.

Diabolical wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

In that case, it basically has the same offense as a tank with the same barrel.

What are you on about!? A tank has a machine gun for anti-infantry duties, when charging an artillery cannon just weave. Even if you do get killed by a massive shell, your buddies will be able to take it during the massive reload time. This is why at the Battle of the Bulge an artillery unit that was attacked by German troops used rifles, not their cannons.

Perhaps you didn't read my next sentence within the same paragraph...see below:

Diabolical wrote:

The only difference is that they are easier to capture by infantry.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

In that case, it basically has the same offense as a tank with the same barrel.

What are you on about!? A tank has a machine gun for anti-infantry duties, when charging an artillery cannon just weave. Even if you do get killed by a massive shell, your buddies will be able to take it during the massive reload time. This is why at the Battle of the Bulge an artillery unit that was attacked by German troops used rifles, not their cannons.

Perhaps you didn't read my next sentence within the same paragraph...see below:

Diabolical wrote:

The only difference is that they are easier to capture by infantry.

Tell me, how fast can an artillery team push forward a cannon? Tell me, what happens when mortars are fired on it? Tell me, what happens when it runs into enemy armour? Tell me, what happens when an American 105mm howitzer runs into a company of German 37mm AT guns?

I'm trying hard ... really struggling ... not to insult you personally, here.

I never disagreed with you on the fact that artillery should be relatively easy for infantry to capture if they approach it and that it is easier to approach by infantry than a tank.

.

.

REALLY trying hard not to insult you personally...

.

.

Diabolical wrote:

Perhaps you didn't read my next sentence within the context it was intended...

I'm trying hard ... really struggling ... not to insult you personally, here.

I never disagreed with you on the fact that artillery should be relatively easy for infantry to capture if they approach it and that it is easier to approach by infantry than a tank.

.

.

REALLY trying hard not to insult you personally...

Arty have low velocity huge caliber guns , and usualy firing HE , good luck penetrating , and aiming some shermans charging you