How do you normally employ your artillery assets?

[Dr Zaius]

I realize that this question is hard to answer as it's going to be based on the situation, however, I'm curious how the majority choose to employ your artillery assets in most situations. Do you attach your artillery directly to a brigade or battalion, or do you keep if further back and use it to suppress enemy ADA or for counterfire?

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

badly...

normally attach arty to my second echelon BDEs/BNs and leave the Manuever BNs unhindered. ADA suppression (as I suck), and I try to use airstrikes on enemy batteries - "try" being the operative word.

ofc, targets of opportunity are gobbled up...or completely let off cos I don't see them

 

[MikMyk]

Well play mostly the stock scenarios as I'm learning so have to employ them on all fire mission types and I generally leave them independent in the rear with the gear.

Honestly still a little lost as to why SEAD is really a priority mission. I realize it is possible in RL but thought it to be more of a special case. It just feels like I have to keep that a priority which doesn't seem right in terms of the battle model. I really don't like that specific implementation and really get the feeling it was part of getting a good air strike model to work.

However you did bring forth the notion that I could just design my own battles and forgo that part of otherwise great game

 

[Scully]

I usually start with opportunity fire until I get a decent picture of what's going on. Once I start seeing things, I start mixing opp fire and counterbattery. If I know I'm going to be doing some major airstrikes, I set a few to SEAD.

I don't find them to be very effective against manuever units, but I do like being able to drop FASCAM in front of advancing bad guys to slow them down.

After my pbem with Gary, I've determined that I prefer to keep the units separate from my manuever units. It just seems to give you more control.

I'm not sure if the way I'm using them is correct, but I like my arty to go after Redfor's support type units behind the front lines for the most part. And only use them against manuever units if I'm trying to break through, in which case I'll mass them against my main line of attack, or if they're getting ready to break through, in which case I'll mass them on the lead units.

Well, there's my rambling answer.

Brian

 

[Dr Zaius]

Honestly still a little lost as to why SEAD is really a priority mission. I realize it is possible in RL but thought it to be more of a special case. It just feels like I have to keep that a priority which doesn't seem right in terms of the battle model. I really don't like that specific implementation and really get the feeling it was part of getting a good air strike model to work.

That's an interesting comment. I have found that artillery is not as lethal as one would generally expect it to be. Even under pristine conditions, I have found that a simultaneous strike with several artillery units often yields less than impressive results. In real life, several US artillery battalions backed up with some MLRS can very rapidly lay waste to an entire Iraqi brigade. Now we can debate just how representative that is of modern day combat in general, but I haven't found a way yet to really take a whole brigade out of the picture in a short period of time.

I've also set up an experimental scenario to test something else that I noticed completely by chance. It seems that air units seem to be more lethal depending on the size of the unit. For instance, I had an Apache company that had a strength of 15. I accidentally made this unit a battalion when I created the scenario. During testing, I noticed this particular unit consistently achieved better results than the other Apache companies (i.e., all had a strength of 15, but one of the four was a battalion instead of a company). Now this could have been random chance, but I'm testing this to see if the scale of the unit directly affects combat results.

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

That's an interesting comment. I have found that artillery is not as lethal as one would generally expect it to be.

I think this is because unit disintegration is based more along the theory of Shock, rather than the theory of straight mass. Arty has a role in affecting morale, but is has no presence - which is why attack aviation and manuever units seem to get more results.

No Idea or not whether this is accurate, but as DA is a doctrine learning tool, and as Shock is a big component of the US land doctrine, it seems that the lack of visible physical presence of the Arty unit is taken into account at some point.

Or Jim might have just abstracted that

 

[Dr Zaius]

Interesting response. I may ask Jim about this directly and see what his take is on it. Historically, artillery is the most lethal killer on the battlefield and generally accounts for more destruction than any other single branch (although infantry, armor, and aviation don't like to admit this).

So far, the experimental scenarios I have been messing with have provided mixed results. Powerful artillery units seem to be devastating vs. support units, often times rendering these units nearly combat ineffective with several powerful attacks. With maneuver units, however, it's a different story. A mechanized infantry brigade--even one with low morale--can sustain many direct attacks without breaking, even from strong artillery forces acting in conjunction. I find that to be a questionable result as there isn't a brigade in the world--including one of our own--that we couldn't well nigh obliterate with a coordinated artillery strike from several beefy units. This assumes, of course, that you hit the unit with full force. Desert Storm provided evidence that armored maneuver units--even those dug into defensive positions--can be smashed by a massed artillery strike.

I'll have to play around with this some more before I reach any final conclusions. These are just some early observations after playing with the experimental scenario.

 

[MikMyk]

How about this. Is there a distinction (in terms of damage) between a artillery target that is moving or one that is fixed? I'm making an assumption (maybe a big one) that mobile targets should be less susceptible to damage. I would assume of course that mobility is certainly effected for those moving but don't have a clear recollection of it doing so (need to look in the game this weekend too I guess).

I would also wonder if some sort of dispersal setting for defending units would be appropriate. I would think if an enemy knew they were apt to be under considerable bombardement they might disperse their defensive positions to suffer the least damage by concentrated fires.. The downside of this is the defending force is alot less able to concentrate its combat power (mayble similar in foot print to security).