Artty units used as 'pure' bombardment review.

[L`zard]

Gentlemen;

Artillery as pure bombardment missions, and what it means to WW1.

I know this subject has been done befor, but does anyone have a compilation of articles concerning same?

My intent is to gather all the articles that might help in a WW1 scenario into one place, as a teaching set.

Subjects that should be covered:

1) How to do it, and why?
2) Effects on 'rounds' and why these effects occur. Atty unit settings.
3) How to emulate 'week long prepartory' bombardments, and why the present version of toaw can't, lol!
4) Counter-btty fires, how to emulate/ execute.
5) Gas shell barrages for WW1, can it be done? as a part of 'bombard only' previous to 'attacks'..........something about the TO's comes to mind, and changing effects........

WW1 was (on the west front, at least) an artillery war. I know that ToaW isn't really set up for WW1, but there are some excellent scenarios concerning this period, eh?

In one recent scenario, I noticed some strange things about artillery, that weren't quite what I'd have liked in a WW1 sce. While I imagine most of the 'faults' in the game were mine, still, I'd like to hear from the experts........

Therefor: at least a list of 'links to articles' concerning my search would be greatly appreciated.

REMEMBER! This is for World War One, and similar scenarios, that are artillery intensive, eh? :D

A little help here, you guys.........?

[L`zard]

Forgive me for double psting, but:


This thread applys to both Stauffenbergs and Piero's WW1 scenarios, eh?

IE: the major WW1 grand-tactical scenarios......

One really needs to know how to put in 'massive' artty bombardments, or how to modify in order to allow 'the first use of gas-shells' as a TO, but to make it a function of particular units, in localized atcks.

If these things 'cannot' be done, then one needs to know why, and send msgs to the 'matrix' peeps.

Gas IS opporational. Making 'one' unit capable isn't too far out of line.

Look at the uses, times, and then decide if a 'one unit, atk per x turns, seems reasonable.

Would be similar to adding a 'tank' unit, eh? Cambrai, anyone?

Melding these concepts into a 'huge' scenario should only be a matter of details.

LOL, easy for me to say, eh?

[Felix]

I have the same situation in my WW1 scenario 'American Front-1914'. With 25km hexes, obviously there is no way artillery can fire more than one hex.

The best that can be done is to move artillery into the adjoining hexes, as many gun units as possible, and place them on Tactical Reserve or dig them in. They will then support the attack.

If you wish to simulate the bombardment for a turn before The Big Push, use a single brigade or cavalry unit to do a few soak off attacks. I don't like these, but it is the closest you'll come to the bombardment missions at this scale. It also serves as a good warning to the enemy too, but hey, at least it's historically accurate in that respect.

I've found that a properly supported assault can force fortified, up to strength divisions out of the hex. But it's going to hurt. The trick is to keep pushing the assault, and to make sure it's properly resourced, so that when the assault divisions are at quarter strength, someone else can take up the push.

[Bdr.Mallette]

Forgive me for double psting, but:


This thread applys to both Stauffenbergs and Piero's WW1 scenarios, eh?

IE: the major WW1 grand-tactical scenarios......

One really needs to know how to put in 'massive' artty bombardments, or how to modify in order to allow 'the first use of gas-shells' as a TO, but to make it a function of particular units, in localized atcks.

If these things 'cannot' be done, then one needs to know why, and send msgs to the 'matrix' peeps.

Gas IS opporational. Making 'one' unit capable isn't too far out of line.

Look at the uses, times, and then decide if a 'one unit, atk per x turns, seems reasonable.

Would be similar to adding a 'tank' unit, eh? Cambrai, anyone?

Melding these concepts into a 'huge' scenario should only be a matter of details.

LOL, easy for me to say, eh?



Yo yo yo,
wut's with all the "eh's"
That's Canadian Eh!

Take off you Hoser!

jk'ing :D

[L`zard]

@Mallette:

Like, my mother was scrared by a Canadian while pregnant with me, eh?

[piero1971]

the V for Victory games had a great option of orders for artillery units. hope that one day comes to TOAW (rest, counter battery, attack, cover, barrage, etc.)

in ww1, I agree that one of the reasons I wanted to make my scen on such a scale was to enable 2+ hex ranged artillery for army artillery, while div and corps would still suffer atrition from combat.

as for gas, i resorted to add specialist units. because 1. gas was not that efficient 2. use was localized (can't be a Theater Option) and 3.hard to simulate it first strong effects that with time would be reduced.

[L`zard]

Another reason why Piero's scenarios 'RULE' , and the only reason I don't play them against myself would be the use of 'decoys'............

2nd all time favorite WW1 scenario.........

Piero: am adding my vote that your 1914-1917 scenario be included in ToaW:ME

You and Daniel are 'uber mensch' to me, eh?

Someday, there will be a '10 km' map for WW1, and many things should be easier, eh? (or not, as your a designer, lol).

Personally, I'd like to see a '7.5 k' map-scale, and 'half-week' turns.........

Then one could really work with the details....Artillery would finally come into it's own..........

The fact that this might take a 'real-time' year to play,well.........that's what ww1 should teach the players, eh?

[piero1971]

ww1 scenarios usually teach players not to attack . as it slughters way too many men... only problem is how to win then?

yes, decoys are liked/hated depending of players... with theater recon at 0 or 5 or 10 may, these fake divisions can really puzzle players as where a next offensive can take place... of course that can't fool them too much and sometimes these can be used to plug gaps in mountains, etc,. that should be banned by house rules.. but..

as for artillery, indeed a 5km/hex map (my favourite scale for TOAW) for all of europe should be great! as soon as the 300hex limit is gone, watch map makers retreat in caves for 6 months and od it!

[L`zard]

@Piero;

"ww1 scenarios usually teach players not to attack "

Actually, I'd argue that....

More likely, ww1 scenarios just get people used to the idea of 'vast' casualties...sort of like playing Soviets in ww2......

That this may teach 'false to facts' doctrine, well....that's why we play 'war-games', eh?

I hope that the real world general staff is better than the 'modeled' ww1 sorts, lol, tho sometimes one wonders......:hush:

[Dicke Bertha]

@Piero;

"ww1 scenarios usually teach players not to attack "

Actually, I'd argue that....

More likely, ww1 scenarios just get people used to the idea of 'vast' casualties...sort of like playing Soviets in ww2......

That this may teach 'false to facts' doctrine, well....that's why we play 'war-games', eh?

I hope that the real world general staff is better than the 'modeled' ww1 sorts, lol, tho sometimes one wonders......:hush:

With your name, you should make for a perfect WW1 General! :cheeky: ;)

[L`zard]

LOL!

Depending on how 'perjorative' your take on 'lizard' is, I'm sure more than a few of the poor bodies in the trenches would agree, eh?

The funny-sad part of WW1 is that they ( the general staff on both sides) were right up-to-date, and it was all bleeding-edge thinking.

Hindsite is marvelous, eh?

[Stauffenberg]

I'm up to turn 57 in TGW_2.2 playtesting with Doug. I found it interesting to say the least, that at times I was deliberately engaging in "attrition" (read ghastly slaughter) on entire fronts to keep up a strategic level of pressure to reduce the number of units he could free up to send to another front.

This is particularly true early on in preventing Britain & France from sending large armies to engage the Turks. If the Germans go on the complete defensive in France it has a ripple effect everywhere.

I'll be putting up a complete AAR on this run through over at Rugged Defense in a week or two.

D.

[Ben Turner]

This is particularly true early on in preventing Britain & France from sending large armies to engage the Turks. If the Germans go on the complete defensive in France it has a ripple effect everywhere.

Two questions, from the point of view of one trying to form a multiplayer Central Powers strategy;

a) Just how large an army can the British send to fight the Turks? I'm having this worrying vision of thirty divisions advancing up the Levant or wherever.

b) If the Allies need excess forces to fend off the attacks, then presumably they won't be able to strip their front too severely so long as you can maintain the threat of an offensive. The trick would be balancing the need to limit one's own comittment to the western front with the need to keep the Allies believing that a major offensive is just around the corner. Interestingly, disallowing the replay (which is on the whole a good policy, in my view) makes it more difficult to make such a bluff as one can no longer shuffle units around menacingly in an attempt to get the Entente's attention.

[L`zard]

Gentlemen;

I'd still like my original question answered, especially as applies to TGW, eh?

Methinx that 'bombardments' should be applicable on a one week turn basis, even if the Namur/belgian fortresses fell in less than a week.

Something in a 'game notes'...?

While I find it easy to bring up the 'Krupps' , using them effectively should get at least some attention......