The state and design of artillery

I have put a lot of effort into this post and I hope that it manages to reach relic or some other people who also love this game like I do and want it to improve overall.

Rather then a balance topic I would like to create a discussion about the state of artillery with special focus on rocket artillery in general.

My goal is not to focus too much on a single unit but rather which role artillery should play in general in this game to ensure both a reason to build them and most of all a fun gameplay experience. Also, most of my observations are true for 2v2 and up. In a 1 vs 1 the smaller maps and less units overall may change some of them slightly. In general though I'd say they apply there too.

In my eyes artillery is necessary for this game. There are certain rock / paper / sciccor (god i forgot how to write that one) mechanics in which artillery is needed to present a viable counter to certain units in a certain position.

Now the question arises, what use do you want out of artillery in this game? To me the answer is following in importance from highest to lowest:

1. Hardcountering static emplacement and forcing mobile defensive lines to move or pay the price with no immediate threat of retailiation through range.

2. Doing damage to slowly moving Tankdestroyers Elefant/Jagdtiger/ISU

3. SOFTENING up infantry blobs and/or forcing them to move or to avoid a certain area for the time.

(4) punishing people who dont pay attention (mostly low level play and thus more a result of that than a desired effect)

Before we go into the subject of how those tasks or handled ingame I would like to say a word about efficiency of artillery units in general.

To "calculate" efficiency one needs to compare the cost of the unit (might be reoccuring) to the damage (again calculated in cost) it does to the enemy. With the very notable addition that complete wipes on infantry count dpuble because normaly you reinforce at half the price of the unit, so a sturmtiger with 1 wipe on a Rifleman, an thus 5 kills has done the same damage like a sniper with 10 kills on Rifleman. Units prone to wiping therefor have a better chance at higher efficiency than units that do their kills traditionaly.

There are 2 (2.5 if you want to be very specific) type of units in this game. Such that do mp/fuel/mun damage (henceforth just referred to as damage) while normaly gradualy receiving the same, this goes for all infantry but snipers (with again the exception of soviet snipers).

And those who deal damage with either receiving none in return or total loss of the unit, this goes for all vehicles, brit and ost sniper and all artillery.

2.5 categorys because of the second you have to distinguish between those that need repairs and cind of have a cost therefor to sustain and those that dont (sniper and artillery) but its a minor thing, just mentioned for completion.

(There are some units that are somwhere in between that sometimes also take gradual damage but not always like mortars/leig pack howi etc but since this is a sidetrack its not necessary to further distinguish.)

Obviously the second needs to be less effective. There are many more factors to consider though, one is how easily the second option of total loss of investment is achieved. A good example is the ost sniper falling in the second category. At 360 mp the ost sniper needs to kill 18 cons to break even (upkeep would make this far to complicated and is thus ignored) this is a not unsubstantial nr of kills and the sniper beeing only 1 man is very likely to die (mines, arty, tank shot, countersnipe and enemy imf) having to come rather close to do his damage (compared to arty).

In short, there needs to be a balance of damage done to damage received ratio/cost/risk of complete loss.

If you want to simplyfy it the ost sniper would have on a scale from 1 to 10 10 beeing the highest and thus best for you.
Regarding damage done to damage received, all units of the second category do not take damage so you could say they all get a 10 but there are differences in how much damage they inflict, a tiger and a churchill while both only either live or die do not do the same damage.

Damage done to received: 7 (he does not take damage and dishes out a lot, not many wipes though normaly)
Cost: 4 (he is 1.5 times as expensive as an ordinary infantry squad)
Risk of complete loss:1 (it doesnt get any more vulnerable than a sniper in this game)

All in all a balanced unit (note, all of my examples can be argued with weather fully balanced, but in GENERAL design intents they are true)

There are units that wipe often and are extremly durable and are in the second category but are balanced by their cost and that they have to come close to deal their damage, an example of this category is the KT.

Damage done to received ratio: 9 (the kt wipes squads and takes none in return)

Cost: 1 (it's one of the most expensive units ingame)

Chance of total loss: 5 (he has lots of health and armour but has to come close to do damage while beeing slow and outranged by most of his counters)

Balanced.



Then there are units who do damage with close to complete safety if handled right leaving only cost or amount of damage to balance them. An example is the calliope

Damage done to received: 10 (the calliope is a wipe machine and beeing in the second category does not take damage in return.

Cost: 5 (the calliope is not cheap, beeing the most expensive off all rocket arties)

Chance of total loss of investment: 10
(Having tank hp and armour and beeing mobile while beeing able to do its damage from complete safety)

Not so balanced.

Another example is the katyusha

Damage done to received: 6 (it does a fair amount of damage to infantry blobs occasionaly wiping a squad here and there)

Cost: 7 (at only 85 fuel and some 300 mp its rather cheap)

Chance of total loss of investment: 6 (the katyusha can fire from afar, needs to get closer to do the most damage BUT one 160 damagw vehicle or even high dps infantry so much as sneeze next to it once and its gone)

Balanced.


The reason I wrote all of this so far is to point out that units need to be balanced overall to be worth it and that artillery with its nature of beeing among the units with the highest damage done to received ratio need to be balanced either through cost or chance of total loss, failing that the damage needs to be toned down.

There is also a very simple reason as to why special focus needs to be put on artillery.

Artillery is not fun game play.

While it may be fun to click a circle on a blob or even single unit and its gone 5 seconds later out of the fog of war with little to no chance of loss it is not to be on the receiving end. As soon as artillery becomes to efficient there is little reason to build anything else. And those are the most boring games of all, there is no flanking, no cover, no combined arms, and after a while, no infantry... anyone remember sheldt? Or before brace was nerfed? The most boring games of all. And we are heading there again.

Artillery needs to be less efficient than other units and needs to have its value over a long time or strategical benefit (forcing movements/ denying sectors) not outright damage.

At the moment there are different tiers of effectiveness on those units.

There is the alpha tier
-pwerfer and calliope

The good tier
-katyusha and stuka

The perhaps underperforming tier
-b4, 152 lefh, priest, sexton

You might notice the last tier consists of mostly stationary real artillery contrary to moving rocket artillery. 

Regarding my 3 points from the start.
1. All of the artillery counter emplacements and the real artillery (shell based) does deny sections or force movements with the b4 not doing it but doing more damage.

2. Rocket artillery does not and also should not (calliope does damage them quite a lot...) bother slow long range tanks and shell artillery doesnt do a good job at it. (Here i suggest a buff that shells landing close stun these behemoths as just more damage or accuracy would only lead to more long range infantry wipes)

3. The Pwerfer and the calliope both excel at damage and wiping squads. It does not matter weather its a blob or a single unit capping a lone sector somewhere. If they decide to attack it, chances are it will be wiped. I find this promotes very bad gameplay and seriously questions the efficiency of those units. A tiger for example or a brummbär or a t34 85 or whatever tank you want costs more or the same and has to go way

Closer into the fray to achieve less damage. I strongly suggest a change towords more saturation damage that harms units and kills harmed units. It's not ok that 2 obers are shot in literaly 1 second from a calliope fireing 50 m (whatever range unit the game uses) away from them from the fog of war and they both get vaporized in the first volley even though you hit retreat. Thats the sturmtigers job and frankly i am not too fond of that one either but thats another story. It's equaly not ok that a lone rifle squad capping gets vaporized by 1 Pwerfer salvo. This is not the intended purpose of those units as they can do it for way to cheap a prize and with way too little risk.

The katyusha and to a lesser extend the stuka are spot on. The katyusha beeing the best. It has to come realy close to do a lot of damage and pays for that by beeing one shot in return or even killed by inf that happens to be arround. It saturates an area, it is very rare for a squad to die to the first volley of a katy, it happens but its manageable. The katy is also not expensive so it performs overall well. The stukas rockets are skillbased, leaving it in the hands of both the attacker and the receipient what the outcome will be. Technically you can avoid beeing hit by it all game, and even if it hits the "new" randomness of the weapon doesnt ensure wipes. They happen, but not frequent. Also the stuka gets 2 shot in a faction without snares.

Of the 2 the stuka might be slightly overperforming. The katy is realy the golden middle.

All the real howitzers suffer from 1 weakness that keeps them in check. They get 1 shot by most of map abilities. Most players dont go for them because they know there's a high chance of them beeing countered by a 1 click 160 mun or 200 mun ability giving a favourable 600 mp for mun trade. And frankly... i am ok with that. Ever been in a game without a team having an offmap arty? Those things can be horrible. If they ever were made to survive an offmap they would need to have their efficiency brought down in another way as yes, they do have scatter and some shots just achieve nothing. But they also dont have any warning noise like rocket artillery and as such are much more threatening. I am personaly fine that these shell artilleries are only valuable in some very certain situations as I do not find them promoting fun gameplay. Your opinion might ofcourse differ.

I guess in the end after all these arguments what I am trying to say is, artillery units, due to their nature, need to be a lot less damaging amd to ensure a fun game experience rather border on the lines of UP than OP.

This is for now the end of one huge post. I hope I managed to put some structure in it. Wasnt that easy writing it on a cellphone ☺

Good ideas here, overall. However, I do think that on-map stationary arty should survive off-maps with a sliver of health so that it takes one hit from any AT weapon to finish off. It's damage has been reduced and it has to be built outside base sector now. It isn't how it used to be.

Good thing that this (https://www.coh2.org/topic/48788/ostheer-railway-artillery) falls under every category you mentioned.

Good ideas here, overall. However, I do think that on-map stationary arty should survive off-maps with a sliver of health so that it takes one hit from any AT weapon to finish off. It's damage has been reduced and it has to be built outside base sector now. It isn't how it used to be.

I agree it is a bad way to balance them as there is 0 skill required in countering them. But I am just happier in a game where arty has less if an effect and I fear if they could be built without that counter they would again fall into the category of weapons doing way too much damage for to little risk/cost. I think the lefh and the 152 might be ok, but the b4 for example is just not good for the game if it is efficient. It wipes anything it hits thats not a tank and even those have to be careful. Forcing your opponent to move is good. Outright killing stuff with a click is not good for this game or fun.

Good thing that this (https://www.coh2.org/topic/48788/ostheer-railway-artillery) falls under every category you mentioned.

While I symphatise with your wish to make the railway artillery more attractive as it should be quite iconic it is not conpareable to ANY of the artillery options i am talking about. Those are all UNITs, not doctrinal abilities. They dont have a risk, they dont take mp/fuel damage. Of all the options they should be the least impactful over the course of a game since they are just supplementary.

While I symphatise with your wish to make the railway artillery more attractive as it should be quite iconic it is not conpareable to ANY of the artillery options i am talking about. Those are all UNITs, not doctrinal abilities. They dont have a risk, they dont take mp/fuel damage. Of all the options they should be the least impactful over the course of a game since they are just supplementary.

In that case, Lefh need a buff, along with the b4.

I'll try to read it, but try to use

[b][i][u][size][color]

TL;DR is also good.

i agree with your write up and think there are two simple ways to deal with (most of) the issues.

1) decrease the lethal (>=80) AoE of howitzers and increase the non-lethal (<80) AoE. this allows artillery to bleed units without wiping anywhere near as often. this also allows artillery to be much more accurate and rapid firing because it gives the receiving player much more time to react.

2) make the pop cost of artillery overly high but leave the mp/fuel cost at standard balanced levels. this does two things. first, it makes it harder to spam artillery because you can have less of it for a given population amount and less of everything else for a given pop cap amount. this results in a force with weaker combined arms. second, an overly high pop cost results in a decreased mp income which punishes bleed on the part of the artillery using player. mp is by far the most valuable (and most plentiful) resource because ALL units (except the para plane falls) require mp to be built. this issue was extremely obvious with the old soviet industry if it was triggered without having a sufficient mp float as the player would end up with 400+ fuel and 0 mp, unable to build anything let alone spam 34/76s.

also, that is a hilarious (and entirely readable) butchering of scissors. don't feel bad though, it's obvious english is not your first language. i had to use auto-correct anyway.

I'll try to read it, but try to use

Code

[b][i][u][size][color]

TL;DR is also good.

^Needs this. Not surr if ive ever seen a thread intro fill up 2 posts before.

Sexton is on very bad state now. need change

Sexton is on very bad state now. need change

that's because the sexton has shit for AoE. no direct relation to this thread which is about the cost effectiveness of artillery as a role.

^Needs this. Not surr if ive ever seen a thread intro fill up 2 posts before.

Cind off hard to make a tl:dr (which means a summary I guess?) If you feel most of it is essential. I wouldnt habe written it otherwise. I made the experience that if you explain something poorly people will fill the gaps with misunderstandings. As for the formatting... well I agree. Seems a lot of effort to me now though to go through it all and add those brackets.

i agree with your write up and think there are two simple ways to deal with (most of) the issues.

1) decrease the lethal (>=80) AoE of howitzers and increase the non-lethal (<80) AoE. this allows artillery to bleed units without wiping anywhere near as often. this also allows artillery to be much more accurate and rapid firing because it gives the receiving player much more time to react.

Edit; they actualy did exactly this change with mirtars a while back, that they dont wipe but do health damage in a bigfer area. It worked wonders. They also did it to the katy i believe. Just with the werfer and calliope relic seems to have decided to go the other way and id like them to rethink that

2) make the pop cost of artillery overly high but leave the mp/fuel cost at standard balanced levels. this does two things. first, it makes it harder to spam artillery because you can have less of it for a given population amount and less of everything else for a given pop cap amount. this results in a force with weaker combined arms. second, an overly high pop cost results in a decreased mp income which punishes bleed on the part of the artillery using player. mp is by far the most valuable (and most plentiful) resource because ALL units (except the para plane falls) require mp to be built. this issue was extremely obvious with the old soviet industry if it was triggered without having a sufficient mp float as the player would end up with 400+ fuel and 0 mp, unable to build anything let alone spam 34/76s.

also, that is a hilarious (and entirely readable) butchering of scissors. don't feel bad though, it's obvious english is not your first language. i had to use auto-correct anyway.

I agree with the damage change to saturation and the way you would do it like I have written in the text. I am not sure with the popcap change. While it might work people would tend to only notice what they receive, beeing that units still getting killed even if in those 2 minutes between barrages the actual MP lost in deaths and upkeep were similar.

There also is the easiest approach of just balancing them closer to the katyusha with more randomness and less damage overall. The werfer could shoot its rockets slower 1 by 1 giving you time to react, the calliope the same.

My most important point is not exactly those 2 units anyhow. But more that people see which role artillery should play to ensure a fun experience and what that means so they dont defend ridiculous weapons or ask for buffs on so called underperforming ones, which ever those may be in the future.

This thread is irrelevant for allied players since any wehr player using jaeger armor (a basic commander)can 1 click kill your 600 MP investment for 160 munitions.

Or if they can't be bothered to sen a scouting unit, recon and stuka for 210 munitions.

This thread is irrelevant for allied players since any wehr player using jaeger armor (a basic commander)can 1 click kill your 600 MP investment for 160 munitions.

Or if they can't be bothered to sen a scouting unit, recon and stuka for 210 munitions.

There is a reason it's a top teir wehr choice. It has answers to a lot of different things.

There is a reason it's a top teir wehr choice. It has answers to a lot of different things.

I am a little baffled as to your 2 posts. The main focus of the thread is rocket artillery with the second one beeing the other arty, so how does shell artillery beeing hardcountered by a offmap arty make the thread pointless? I said myself that they are countered by that. I then continued to say that I am fine with that as artillery should not take a defining role in this game due to its very nature and how it interacts with game mechanics and fun. If this were to be changed artillery would have to be less effective, maybe not in the case of 152 and lefh but definatly for the b4.

I know its a long thread but maybe read it a little closer.

I am a little baffled as to your 2 posts. The main focus of the thread is rocket artillery with the second one beeing the other arty, so how does shell artillery beeing hardcountered by a offmap arty make the thread pointless? I said myself that they are countered by that. I then continued to say that I am fine with that as artillery should not take a defining role in this game due to its very nature and how it interacts with game mechanics and fun. If this were to be changed artillery would have to be less effective, maybe not in the case of 152 and lefh but definatly for the b4.

I know its a long thread but maybe read it a little closer.

Were did i say this thread is pointless, That's right i didn't so please don't put words in my mouth.

Shell artillery has always been hard countered by Stuka, IL2, Time on target, Brit railway, Brit air supremacy.

If this was to change then a total redesign of static artillery needs to happen.
As it is shell based static artillery kinda suck. not enough damage front loaded to make it
a competitive option to rocket artillery.

Its very vulnerable as well due to it being static. I personally would be fine with Static artillery if it was all around just more accurate, B4, Lefh, ML20 all have crap accuracy and a high cost attached to that crap factor.

So yeah more front loaded damage and more accurate.

Were did i say this thread is pointless, That's right i didn't so please don't put words in my mouth.

Shell artillery has always been hard countered by Stuka, IL2, Time on target, Brit railway, Brit air supremacy.

If this was to change then a total redesign of static artillery needs to happen.
As it is shell based static artillery kinda suck. not enough damage front loaded to make it
a competitive option to rocket artillery.

Its very vulnerable as well due to it being static. I personally would be fine with Static artillery if it was all around just more accurate, B4, Lefh, ML20 all have crap accuracy and a high cost attached to that crap factor.

So yeah more front loaded damage and more accurate.

I apologize. Seems i quoted the wrong post and I thought by answering you symphatized with his opinion. My bad.

I know and agree that it has been hardcountered like that always. I do not think that if they ever had the survival added that they should get a damage buff or more frontloaded damage added as well. I am referring to my examples of unit efficiency here. And artillery is the worst offender of all due to its very long ranged nature. On top of that its just not fun gameplay. They would need to do their damage slowly and over time and have tactical valie by forcing movements which is represented well in the salvo model. I just dont agree with artillery beeing in such a state that its a lo brainer to be built every game. It should only counter very specific situations. Shell based arty also has no warnkng noise like rocket (not that it helps with the werfer or calliope) And besides. Atm shell artillery does not survive offmaps and is therefor balanced like that. If they ever changed that then these changes would be necessary.

Its the overperforming rocket arty that meeds to be brought down. Not the shell based one buffed.