Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Firstfelix
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 14:50
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Firstfelix » Thu 23 Nov 2017 18:45

There is life in the forum yet!
I think the artillery balance is about right.
Keeping your AT guns on return fire and repositioning after firing is essential. In the end it is easier to have them behind a hedgerow (rather than in it) until needed. There is plenty of time to get them in position.
I play 12th SS a fair bit and most of the game is spent sniping AT guns until, hopefully, in the last ten minutes you can run riot with your heavy tanks.
I prefer SD in nearly every respect. I have been back to Wargame RD a couple of times but I find it pretty dull.

I also play 15th Scottish a fair bit. You have to husband your AT guns to make sure you have sufficient in the end game.
I disagree that artillery is overly effective against well spaced infantry. A panzerwerfer strike will upset your plans temporarily but the 15th have 1 star experienced 25 pounders for pretty effective counter battery.

WBA
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2017 20:37
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby WBA » Sun 26 Nov 2017 21:19

Sunshine wrote:From my perspective artillery:
- is too cheap
- is firing too fast
- is available in way too high numbers
- is too economical (ammo consumption)
- stuns even heavily armored units too easily/quickly (even small mortars)
- kills very important and rare units like AT-guns too easily


If the above would be addressed, I am certain it would lead to a better all-round-experience for everyone.
In other words: I cannot see why it would not/what possible downsides of the above could be.

I cant agree with this more!
It's for sure way too cheap - there is a division where you can bring up Sexton right at the start for only 150 points and in standard game (40 minutes) if it fires non stop it will land 200 (!!) shells alone, but it's possible to bring 6 (!!) of them, and there is little that you can do about them (of course, if your opponent is good/smart and keeps it at maximum range), while, in comparison, most bombers cost 200+, are easily stopped by AA and even if you will be able to make them land their bombs and get away alive every time, then even then you will land 10-15 bombs at best - is it really balanced and Sexton and artillery in general aren't too cheap compared to other units!?!

I have seen my King Tiger stunned by 3 Sexton shells landing next to it and then picked off by tank, but I don't see this as a big problem or unrealistic, because there should be ways to stop King Tiger and flanking against good/smart players is not an option, so only option is artillery or bombing (which can easily be stooped by aa) to stun it and then hope that it will show side, but, in my opinion, the main issue with artillery is that it's way too cheap for it's effectiveness (mainly self-propelled artillery) compared to other units of the same purpose (bombers) and that their availability is way to high too.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12179
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Mike » Mon 27 Nov 2017 07:33

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Mike wrote:it feels like it's missing something to me when I'm playing it.

And what would that be? (serious question)


Hmmm, diversity I suppose. With Wargame, there were so many units, unit types and decks you could build that it kept me interested for well over a thousand hours of gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I really like how SD does some things but it hasn't really hooked me like Wargame did.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Protosszocker
Corporal
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu 20 Apr 2017 03:14
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Protosszocker » Mon 27 Nov 2017 11:21

Sunshine wrote:
From my perspective artillery:
- is too cheap
- is firing too fast
- is available in way too high numbers
- is too economical (ammo consumption)
- stuns even heavily armored units too easily/quickly (even small mortars)
- kills very important and rare units like AT-guns too easily


If the above would be addressed, I am certain it would lead to a better all-round-experience for everyone.
In other words: I cannot see why it would not/what possible downsides of the above could be.



You also have to see:


Artillery has no effect on the area control zone on its one (just like air units) so it has to be cost efficent in its destructive power as otherwise it would be to weak.
-It seldom works alone, you always need other units to work with,
the only unit it really kills fast are at guns actually as inf squads are quite wide spread or in houses.
they and air units are the only real counter to at gns with he.
even a bit of suppression lets the m become inaccurate as shit.
well used recon units or air units can kill them with ease.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 27 Nov 2017 12:26

Protosszocker wrote:well used recon units or air units can kill them with ease.

Yeah, no. If you have proper AAA on your frontline, artillery is 99% safe from bombers trying to attack it. And I have yet to see recon units making it beyond the frontline without getting spotted. This is not Red Dragon, where recce behind enemy line is actually workable.
Image

User avatar
Sunshine
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2428
Joined: Mon 12 Mar 2012 15:51
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Sunshine » Mon 27 Nov 2017 14:34

Protosszocker wrote:You also have to see:


Artillery has no effect on the area control zone on its one (just like air units) so it has to be cost efficent in its destructive power as otherwise it would be to weak.

They do not have an effect on that in Wargame either, and there they aren't strong anymore except when used in the right moments.
Artillery is (should be) used to attack or defend a position, stunning the enemy so your ground forces can fight them easier.

Artillery should be for ground units what AAA is for air units. It should stun, but not kill (that much) - even though it very well could in real life. For gameplay it downright sucks and leads to shit-games every-time.

"Hey, I just spend a fortune on my only two Flak 41 although I'd really need to buy other stuff as well, but now I am sure in combination with my Flak 37 and Möbelwagen this will put an end to the endless allied plane-trains that just fly through it, laughing their as- oh he just destroyed my Flak 41's with artillery, nevermind."

*slowclap*

Protosszocker wrote:-It seldom works alone, you always need other units to work with,
the only unit it really kills fast are at guns actually as inf squads are quite wide spread or in houses.

Huh? What other unit does it "need"? You have it behind the front line, all it needs there is a supply truck at some point, lol.
And houses? Mostly in hedgerows or forests, you mean, as houses aren't everywhere at all, and if, they aren't necessarily able to be entered and even if, a house does not mean the infantry is safe from steel rain. Not at all.
So what are you talking about?

Protosszocker wrote:they and air units are the only real counter to at gns with he.
even a bit of suppression lets the m become inaccurate as shit.
well used recon units or air units can kill them with ease.

They would be great against AT guns with smoke or just high suppression effects alone.
The problem is they can kill your high value AT guns like nothing, without any risk involved, that is the problem.
I have 2 Flak 41 in my 12.SS-PzDiv deck, and I already think about replacing them as they get smoked asap when I meet someone who played this game for more than an hour.

Recon and air units? Are you kidding me?
They won't die from looking at them. Finding them usually is not the problem, killing them is.
Show me how you crack down the artillery of a more experienced allied-player as Germany, please, I can't wait!
Your few bombers won't penetrate the AAA cover, and even IF, the puny bombers of most German divisions won't be able to crack a sexton if their life depends on it, also how smart is it to sacrifice all the planes I have for one, maybe two artillery units when the result is total allied air superiority because none of my planes will survive the allied plane-train-spam that will appear as soon as I send my air assets?

In some German divisions (all of them?) you basically can't have bombers, as
a) they are rather useless (as counter-artillery at least) and
b) you need the slots you have for fighters, as German AAA is usually so under-powered that an allied player with many planes can penetrate it and get bombs on target despite you fielding every single piece of artillery you have.


Fun fact: I just put 6x Hummel into my 12.SS-PzDiv. deck and if the enemy insists on shitty artillery abuse, I now answer accordingly, shooting on EVERYTHING remotely soft, from a supply truck over gun emplacements to infantry units, just to show him how shitty his own medicine tastes.

And what great rounds these are... when both sides keep each other busy with exchanging artillery... oh and plane-trains from the allies, of course.
Image
Sponsored by italic & German superiority.

WBA
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2017 20:37
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby WBA » Mon 27 Nov 2017 18:46

To be honest, I am almost done with this game... Sorry, but this is not a real time strategy game - it's more like real time artillery micromanagement simulator! There is no strategy involved if for all problems there is only one answer:
[] you have an at gun on your way, then arty the shit out of that place and go thru it with your armor afterwards and gain TERRITORY
[] don't have close combat infantry for forest fight, send in your casual infantry in there find out the location of opponents close combat infantries location - immediately retreat before any shot is taken and then arty the shit out of that place and kill those units or make them back off in the process and gain TERRITORY - repeat it as many times as you wish or till you have run them out of forest completely
[] your tank is too weak to take out opponents tank, then simply send artillery shell spam over that tank to stun it and then pick it off by your weaker tank, when stunned tank have shown it's side or rear armor
[] if for some unknown reason you have become bored with this artillery micromanagement simulator and you want to add some flavor, but opponents AA is in your way - arty the shit out off it and then add a bomber spam to your already existing arty spam

Basically artillery is not a support weapon in this game, but a main weapon and all other units act like support units that take over territory that artillery have already flattened!
What's the point of different characteristics of infantry and/or tanks in this game if they are nullified because of artillery?
This game is ONLY about who better micromanages his artillery and nothing else - who do it better that player wins - is that a game design choice or is it only an exploit that developers are willing to fix?

Wolke
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed 12 Jun 2013 17:15
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Wolke » Wed 29 Nov 2017 11:01

I tend to agree with Sunshine & Co.


To me indirect fire weapons have replaced most other ways of "taking care of problems".

Enemy inf? Do I try to pin it with my own infantry, then move up close combat specialists to take them out? Or can I risk moving up my StuH to take potshots at them? Maybe I can utilize the Flak20mm in a support role? Nah, select mortars and rightclick.

An AT gun in the way? Select mortar/arti and fire-position.

Scouts in some bush? Do I get vision with my own scouts and take them out from range with supporing units? Nah, select arti and fire-position.

Tanks? If I have means to take them out, but need more time, Arti will keep them supressed indefinetly once the initial supression is done with planes or AT.

And that is me playing one of the (in my opinion) weaker decks on the arti-side (I refuse to go all out cancer on call-in-arti), the 91. LL.


Arti is useful enough in so many ways, that spending points on it is often not something the opponent can capitalize on, especially if they play a deck light on tanks

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 4 Dec 2017 21:36

Had the stupid idea of jumping into a round of Cancer Steel Division over the weekend. As expect, my enemies main defense was blasting everything he saw with four mortars in A and some SK18s in B. Sure was fun that it worked against the arty-light French deck. Two things resulted from that: I was mad I didn't pick 2nd ID to retaliate with MLRS and I finally removed this game from my HDD.
Image

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: Is artillery a tiddy-tad too cancerous?

Postby McNash » Wed 13 Dec 2017 17:39

Markenzwieback wrote:Had the stupid idea of jumping into a round of Cancer Steel Division over the weekend. As expect, my enemies main defense was blasting everything he saw with four mortars in A and some SK18s in B. Sure was fun that it worked against the arty-light French deck. Two things resulted from that: I was mad I didn't pick 2nd ID to retaliate with MLRS and I finally removed this game from my HDD.


Reminds me of when Westwood nerfed the Nod artillery back in Tiberian Sun - Firestorm, in Tiberian Sun vanilla the Nod artillery was insane, since the environment was destructible you could literally create chasms in the map in order to deny terrain and make trenchs against the enemy, amusingly enough Firestorm introduced the Juggernaut, which was GDI own artillery walker, fortunately you cannot longer use it to change the topography of the map.

Command and Conquer 3 had quite a similar problem as the Juggernaut returned, being heavily armored, having a large blast area and not even needing line of sight to fire despite their cannons being horizontal, if I remember well EALA made a price nerf to keep it balanced but even then it was sometimes quite hard to stop a group of Juggernauts.

In AoA I feel Eugen did a great job with the artillery units, while still extremely powerful they had very nice handicaps, for example the Koalitsiya has a very powerful attack and massive armor, but his rate of fire and speed were extremely low, to the point it was better to use it as a defensive unit, the Rhino had extreme attack range and good but its attack wasn't that powerful, and of course there was no suppression to worry about (because 20 minutes in the future They Shall Know No Fear).
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest