It seems to me that a large proportion of the tube artiliery that there is in this game is redundant.

NATO players will only field the AMX AuF1 as it's combination of accuracy, damage and fire rate just makes it better. I'd comtemplated trying out the M110A2, but the area the shots land in seems to be about 3-4 times larger at the same range, and while HE 7 is a lovely boom, a fire rate of 2/min just sucks. The AuF1 can often land two shots before the enemy can move away... the M110A2 really can't. There is an arguement that it's lack of accuracy is actually a bonus at some times... but I'm not very convinced.

You could try the Abbot or M109 series, but while the Paladin is ok, the better fire rate on the AuF1 is certainly worth it for only 15 points. You'd think you'd want light arty for closer range support, but in reality things don't really work this way. The AuF1 can get close enough safely usually, and is so accurate that it doesn't need to be in a lot of cases. I really can't work out a case for taking any other tube arty.

Pact are more interesting as they have seveal good tube arty pieces - the MSTA-S, Malka, Dana and 253M Akatsiya all have their plus points. I prefer the Malka myself, but at least there are arguments possible for the others, unlike with NATO.

So it leads me to wonder what is extra good about the better arty, and what roles the worse arty should perhaps be modified to fit. Of course there is simple price changing that could bring them into play but while that'll bring about a decision as to what to have on the deck, they'll all be pretty much the same thing if perfectly priced. Arty is arty, and while I think there are some choices, they're simply between the HE 7 guns and the HE 5 guns really.

I think part of the problem might be a similar problem that vetted arty had back in the closed beta, with the value being looked at when balancing accuracy being the radius of the hit circle rather than the area. I think the other part of the problem is with arty pieces that also have AP rounds being able to be used with no min range. The min range on the M110A2 is actually rather annoying (2km IIRC), however the AMX AuF1 doesn't have this problem at all.

So while I think what we have is fine at the moment, it's a point I thnk is perhaps worthy of discussion. I'm against decreasing the effectiveness of arty any further myself, however I would like to see a bit more variety in the arty pieces fielded. At the moment the only real tube arty NATO ever wants to field is the AMX AuF1, and I feel this is wrong.

Any ideas?

The key selling points to Auf1 are accuracy and rate of fire. While it does have very good fire control compared to every other artillery piece of the period, maybe accuracy 10 is overdoing it a little. Pinpoint accuracy in 1985 seems a little off; dedicated ballistic computers were commissioned in 1999.

From a gameplay perspective, perhaps a price increase is good enough. 10-15 points more and it should be in line with other artillery unit. You could trade accuracy for volume by going with other units.

_________________
Wargame: Disco Edition

http://i.imgur.com/KwSCdxW.png

I agree, the only NATO arty I 've ever seen are the MLRS, AMX Auf and the M125 serie. I dunno it could be solved. Nerfing the ROF is out of question, increasing the price of the Auf will steer some shit and decreasing other piece's price will make people raging.

But yeah, when you compare the M110 serie with the 2S7 serie, it become obvious there is a problem.

_________________

I stick to Mortar carriers. they are fast moving, fast firing and panic large things and still kill infantry. My AML 60's seem to do good in most of my matches for only 20 deployment cost. I haven't played a 1v1 yet where I used anything heavier. I have the M110A2 I just never use it.

_________________

And the AuF1 is more precise than the Paladin, even if the stats say otherwise, so the extended range isn't worth it. It's funny because IRL the paladin is better than the AuF1, but also more expensive. And with the RoF of the AuF1, the M109A2, althrough low cost, is outclassed even at short range. IMO, the best solution would be to decrease the price of the M109 series ; the AuF1 is fine when I compare it with the WarPac arty.

If it continues like this, we're gonna nerf every arty in this game, one at a time

_________________

Just realized the M109A6 entered service in 1991... wow...

I'd say give the 109A6 an RoF of 4 rpm but increase price to 90 accordingly. Then the MSTA keeps its 5 RPM, with a price of 95 (or is that unfair? It does have 3 front armor though that is seldom a factor in its usefulness I imagine) and the AuF1 with 100 price and its same RoF.

I dont want this to seem like a MSTA nerf/Paladin buff though, so is there anything the MSTA needs really? It got its unit limit sliced significantly last patch so not sure how important that is nowadays. Would the slight RPM boost be enough to encourage people to buy the M109A6?

For the M110 and 2S7, match prices and keep 10 accuracy with 2 RPM, HE7 rounds. They'll be the big hitters, but awful RoF to balance.

_________________

shhh dont tell the noobs that i like them wasting all the fobs with rocket artillery

Do we really need more incentives to use artillery as compared to tanks and all the other cool toys in the game?

Generally speaking I'm not sure the artillery is tuned correctly at all; it would help greatly to know what devs think is "correct" on a question that has no correct answer. There's rarely reason to take any inaccurate tube arty pieces on either side if you have unlocked the accurate ones. Rockets are only dangerous when massed and if you mass them they're too valuable to waste on places where you aren't absolutely sure the enemy is hiding. This makes me very sad, since artillery mostly moves dirt. It's not a precision weapon, especially in 1985. Alternatively rounds dropping 200-300 meters from you are too effective, take your pick. On the other hand it would be great fun to drop rounds on area targets with batteries of 18 GRAD launchers, resulting in a target pattern two miles wide.

Partially it's the accelerated tempo and resulting skewed ranges that cause this. Partially it's the omnipresence of artillery, since there's no need for FO's, working radio connections etc. etc. Partially it's just the way single rounds are calculated and how the core combat mechanics work. Overhauling everything so we could play Wargame: Artillery Simulator is obviously out of the question.

I'm loathe to suggest any changed without knowing what the devs want the arty to look like. Is it supposed to fire on point targets only? If so, half the artillery weapons are useless outside scenarios and randomized decks. Is it supposed to fire on area targets? It's too expensive and ineffective compared to calling in tanks and gunships. Are you supposed to be able to do counter-battery? Every system in the game is too ineffective for that: you'll use more supplies in shooting CB than your opponent uses for repairing the damaged artillery pieces. Should you be able to protect yourself from artillery by digging holes? That's more micromanagement and goes against the theme of modern mobile warfare. Should we have more game modes where the relative value of unit is different? It'd be nice, but it's more work for devs and may mess up rating systems, competitive aspects and whatnot. I certainly hope we get even unrated game modes, however.

Mortars are the Swiss army knife of weapons, but only NATO has them. Giving WP some 82mm and 120mm tubes would equalize the playing field. Those should be the weapons that fire on every point target you can find. I'd consider keeping the actual artillery as high-power, low-accuracy, long-range weapon system that is best used en masse and against troops concentrations (or fixed positions, but there are none in the game). That way there could be 18 artillery pieces on the field, relatively cheaply, but they'd be useless (or more accurately, cost-ineffective) against single vehicles or even single platoons. My personal preferences run towards bigger games where tanks roam in company-size units (or even bigger!) with all the support you'd expect. I'd tune the artillery to suit that model.

I'd love to hear the official position. What does Eugen think the game should be? Skirmishes of individuals tanks and platoons against similar-sized opposition on a semi-mobile battlefield that dies down after the initial contact has been made?

_________________
Wargame: Disco Edition

http://i.imgur.com/KwSCdxW.png