Criticism of Artillery

No offense to anyone here, but those thinking art needs buffing need to consider 1 thing. Potentially it is your generalship that needs buffing, and not the arty unit in the game?

Very common to claim..oh naval bombers suck...or arty is too weak..... etc... and while maybe the way you use it is weak, while others find it INCREDIBLY strong already.

I know I am quite happy with arty already, and if you were to buff it up even more, probably make it too easy. Same goes for naval bombers. When I can already defeat the entire combined lowlands, Sweden, and UK fleets with the Bismark and a few subs miscellaneous destroyers etc...and 5 naval bombers, making naval bombers stronger seems a bit much. I didn't always know how to use fleets and naval bombers, but once I figured it out...I see they are good how they are. Always liked arty and that strategy is actually fairly easy to figure out. So I don't see the problem here.

Redd Baron wrote:

No offense to anyone here, but those thinking art needs buffing need to consider 1 thing. Potentially it is your generalship that needs buffing, and not the arty unit in the game?

Very common to claim..oh naval bombers suck...or arty is too weak..... etc... and while maybe the way you use it is weak, while others find it INCREDIBLY strong already.

I know I am quite happy with arty already, and if you were to buff it up even more, probably make it too easy. Same goes for naval bombers. When I can already defeat the entire combined lowlands, Sweden, and UK fleets with the Bismark and a few subs miscellaneous destroyers etc...and 5 naval bombers, making naval bombers stronger seems a bit much. I didn't always know how to use fleets and naval bombers, but once I figured it out...I see they are good how they are. Always liked arty and that strategy is actually fairly easy to figure out. So I don't see the problem here.

Redd Baron wrote:

No offense to anyone here, but those thinking art needs buffing need to consider 1 thing. Potentially it is your generalship that needs buffing, and not the arty unit in the game?

Very common to claim..oh naval bombers suck...or arty is too weak..... etc... and while maybe the way you use it is weak, while others find it INCREDIBLY strong already.

I know I am quite happy with arty already, and if you were to buff it up even more, probably make it too easy. Same goes for naval bombers. When I can already defeat the entire combined lowlands, Sweden, and UK fleets with the Bismark and a few subs miscellaneous destroyers etc...and 5 naval bombers, making naval bombers stronger seems a bit much. I didn't always know how to use fleets and naval bombers, but once I figured it out...I see they are good how they are. Always liked arty and that strategy is actually fairly easy to figure out. So I don't see the problem here.

Artillery is actualy very useful. When you approach someone with a well protected stack which has artillery inside, and that someone doesn't have artillery himself, has to either run away, wait and die or charge you. In every case, you have the advantage. Also, if enemy has a good anti air defense somewhere where you want to go through, bring arty to support or lead the bombing instead of bombers.

Reason why some people say that artillery is bad is probably that they can't protect it well, or want to move faster. If you can't protect it well, then you probably can't protect other units also, and if you think about speed, remember that speed matters less if you can't go through.

Paramunac wrote:

Artillery is actualy very useful. When you approach someone with a well protected stack which has artillery inside, and that someone doesn't have artillery himself, has to either run away, wait and die or charge you. In every case, you have the advantage. Also, if enemy has a good anti air defense somewhere where you want to go through, bring arty to support or lead the bombing instead of bombers.

Reason why some people say that artillery is bad is probably that they can't protect it well, or want to move faster. If you can't protect it well, then you probably can't protect other units also, and if you think about speed, remember that speed matters less if you can't go through.

Well, you can't rely on tanks alone, mixed units usually win the day.

My main complaint for starting this thread was ONLY because I think the Artillery needs to be stronger in offshore bombardment of ships. The thing that got me going and upset was that higher level Artillery actually had weaker bombardment of ships than the lower levels.

An error? An insanity? A programmer's cruel joke?

I just want it fixed and improved a little.

I actually use artillery frequently and to great effect. But there is no darn way to sink a ship without firing from tons of Artillery and Railroad guns overnight at a fleet. And then, you still only sink maybe one or two ships for all that effort before the other guy returns from inactive status. I've had it take weeks for a group of half a dozen Artillery to sink a relatively small fleet.

That's stupid.

Diabolical wrote:

My main complaint for starting this thread was ONLY because I think the Artillery needs to be stronger in offshore bombardment of ships. The thing that got me going and upset was that higher level Artillery actually had weaker bombardment of ships than the lower levels.

An error? An insanity? A programmer's cruel joke?

I just want it fixed and improved a little.

I actually use artillery frequently and to great effect. But there is no darn way to sink a ship without firing from tons of Artillery and Railroad guns overnight at a fleet. And then, you still only sink maybe one or two ships for all that effort before the other guy returns from inactive status. I've had it take weeks for a group of half a dozen Artillery to sink a relatively small fleet.

That's stupid.

Funske wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

My main complaint for starting this thread was ONLY because I think the Artillery needs to be stronger in offshore bombardment of ships. The thing that got me going and upset was that higher level Artillery actually had weaker bombardment of ships than the lower levels.

An error? An insanity? A programmer's cruel joke?

I just want it fixed and improved a little.

I actually use artillery frequently and to great effect. But there is no darn way to sink a ship without firing from tons of Artillery and Railroad guns overnight at a fleet. And then, you still only sink maybe one or two ships for all that effort before the other guy returns from inactive status. I've had it take weeks for a group of half a dozen Artillery to sink a relatively small fleet.

That's stupid.

Artilery fire He not AP, u cant penetrate a battleship with he round

If the art guns are firing HE, how come the art guns deal more damage to Infantry than to Armour..

oceanhawk wrote:

Just wondering, although I agree..

If the art guns are firing HE, how come the art guns deal more damage to Infantry than to Armour..

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Just wondering, although I agree..

If the art guns are firing HE, how come the art guns deal more damage to Infantry than to Armour..

That is because HE stands for High Explosive. In laymen terms, that means big bang. Which makes meat balls, rather than pennies.

oceanhawk wrote:

Sorry, I was thinking of HEAT rounds, they have very little explosive.. my bad..

HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank. What you are thinking of is AP which stands for Armour-Piercing.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Sorry, I was thinking of HEAT rounds, they have very little explosive.. my bad..

Wrong again

HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank. What you are thinking of is AP which stands for Armour-Piercing.

rest is on pressure.. The video I watch it on, did originally call it High energy Rounds.. but still

oceanhawk wrote:

Pretty sure I was reading, High Explosive AT.. have tiny warhead in the top..

rest is on pressure.. The video I watch it on, did originally call it High energy Rounds.. but still

With HEAT, you have the penetrating power of AP and something that doesn't necessarily need to hit something inside to do sever damage.

Now, when we go onto a DU APFSDS, then it gets funky!

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Pretty sure I was reading, High Explosive AT.. have tiny warhead in the top..

rest is on pressure.. The video I watch it on, did originally call it High energy Rounds.. but still

It is an AT round designed to cause more damage than a standard AP round. AP use mostly/only kinetic energy, so you gotta hit someone/something to do damage.

With HEAT, you have the penetrating power of AP and something that doesn't necessarily need to hit something inside to do sever damage.

Now, when we go onto a DU APFSDS, then it gets funky!

I go read up

oceanhawk wrote:

Im more of the brimstone kinda guy..

I go read up

DU APFSDS would be an Armour-Piercing, Fin-Stablised, Discarding-Sabot round that is made from Depleted Uranium. A DU round will set things on fire. I mean like, fire fire, people puddle fire.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Im more of the brimstone kinda guy..

I go read up

Hahahaha.

DU APFSDS would be an Armour-Piercing, Fin-Stablised, Discarding-Sabot round that is made from Depleted Uranium. A DU round will set things on fire. I mean like, fire fire, people puddle fire.

There are really, chemical weapons, just not classified as them, but the UN has a report saying they might be considered Chemical weapons

oceanhawk wrote:

There are really, chemical weapons, just not classified as them, but the UN has a report saying they might be considered Chemical weapons

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

There are really, chemical weapons, just not classified as them, but the UN has a report saying they might be considered Chemical weapons

Ehm, how? If you are on about the lasting after-effects, other weapons have worse effects that last as well.

There are a huge amount of birth defects in The Balkans and Iraq, due to this

oceanhawk wrote:

they literally, spread Nuclear waste all over the place ( well not all over the place, but within reason)

There are a huge amount of birth defects in The Balkans and Iraq, due to this

You do know that DU is used to because it has very little U-234 in it, right? It is a by-product of nuclear fission.

Anyway, that would not make it a chemical weapon anyways. There is a reason US troops are trained in CBRN, meaning Chemical, Biological, Radiation, and Nuclear.