What's the deal with artillery?

[WCH]

This has probably been mentioned before, but any updates would be cool.

Obviously artillery is not in a good state. I personally don't use it as it's not worth the cost in almost any case. The damage just isn't there, which is also very unsatisfying.

Obviously we have all seen what artillery does in real life recently. But balance is also important. However the current state is not working.

Was curious if there are plans to fix this and how so? I think it would be cool to be able to target something with artillery, and specify different types of barrages. Some that take shorter to fire, but are much more random - as well as precise shots and perhaps something in between.

Perhaps also incorporate distance from target into aiming time.

Basically it would be nice if arty smashed things, but wasn't OP.

[soldier6661111]

Depends on how you're using it. If you use it like the AI and fire one gun in a fire mission then it's like being bugged by a mosquito. If you use 4-6 guns in a fire mission then it's pretty effective.

The one thing though, infantry are far too resilient to artillery. Took two salvos by 6 guns to take out a Soviet scout squad. So, 6 guns, fired I think 4 times each times 2 missions for a total of 48 HE shells to kill about 7 men?

[LonePie]

Honestly I use artillery to suppress the enemy or make their accuracy worse when I need to attack and they're holding a forest or town. But even then the suppression and accuracy effects take a while to show or are in effect for too short of time.

I think the use of Artillery depends on Eugen's philosophy of implementing them-
are they used mostly for suppression effects and damage as secondary- or the other way around?

Would be nice if they answered how they think artillery is implemented in the game.
It'd make it more clear on how it's used in-game honestly.

[Bae Watch]

Originally posted by WCH:

This has probably been mentioned before, but any updates would be cool.

Obviously artillery is not in a good state. I personally don't use it as it's not worth the cost in almost any case. The damage just isn't there, which is also very unsatisfying.

Obviously we have all seen what artillery does in real life recently. But balance is also important. However the current state is not working.

Was curious if there are plans to fix this and how so? I think it would be cool to be able to target something with artillery, and specify different types of barrages. Some that take shorter to fire, but are much more random - as well as precise shots and perhaps something in between.

Perhaps also incorporate distance from target into aiming time.

Basically it would be nice if arty smashed things, but wasn't OP.

Arty is already powerful, blind arty is useless and thats good. You need to use different arty for different purposes. The cluster is At. the rocket He arty is for stunning and the rest is for killing single units, but overall blind arty is not doing much.

[WCH]

Originally posted by Nero:

if it was a Command & Conquer mod it would take me less than 30 minutes to just fix that stuff. Make a test map, spawn some vehicles and infantry and then tell artillery to fire on it. Notice how it does nothing, go into the data sheets and change these values and then go back and test it again. 30 minutes I tell you.

Yeah, this is how I often feel as well.
--
The issue really comes down to the fact that artillery is a very precise weapon, and when it hits, things get vaporized. And when the game is visually showing you people being showered with arty and shrugging it off, it's jolting.

The other issue is that the amount it costs, and the lack of precision in being able to reliably kill things with it, makes it huge waste of resources. If we are fighting an even battle and you add, let's say, 2 artys and I add 4-5 inf squads... it's game over. I can keep healing, and using the inf in directed, tactical ways. And all the art can do is try to keep tracking and pestering me.

[EZRA_POUND]

Man is perfect it provides suppression like in real life, we dont want arty overpowered.

[IvN]

Arty is weak, indeed, a buff of its HE power would not go amiss, currently even 4 122mm shells do not eliminate 1 (one) section completely. The recent overhaul of bullet weapons was really good, artillery systems need something of a similar kind.

[TRIUMPH]

Some strategic layers arent too useful Currently Uragan and MLRS HE can ruin towns. Mortars hard counter ATGMs and if you're not using smoke you're doing it wrong. 155 and 203s can saturate and deal damage to anything but only when at critical mass. Cluster MLRS and small HE MLRS is garbage and if we get the RD situation back a lot of maps will not be any fun in the current pool.

[busboy999]

I personally agree that artillery could use a buff to make it more realistic and tactically useful. I'm fine with 155/152 shells struggling to kill tanks. Unfortunately though, I've had games where even cluster munitions from multiple shooters are failing to get any kills on observed targets.

I feel for Eugen on this. They're trying to find a gameplay sweet spot; I get the challenge. W:EE artillery was probably too potent. W:ALB it was near useless outside suppression but fired unrealistically fast. W:RD, in my opinion, was the closest they got.

I also respect that opinions on this will vary. My opinion is toward realism. The way my gang usually plays is with one player focusing on artillery, especially the counter-fire fight and its a really cool way to play. But I also understand that lots and lots of players play with random people and they don't like having a random team mate only do artillery.

Eugen will make a decision probably in the interest of the muliplayer community at large. In the future, I think that mods will probably provide the answer to diverse preferences.

[Enigmatic]

All you need is snipers.

[WCH]

Originally posted by busboy999:

I feel for Eugen on this. They're trying to find a gameplay sweet spot; I get the challenge. W:EE artillery was probably too potent. W:ALB it was near useless outside suppression but fired unrealistically fast. W:RD, in my opinion, was the closest they got.

I'm totally sympathetic as well, and think the game is amazing. But seems like a small thing to leave hanging so long.

To sum it up the main issues are that visuals and damage do not match up, artillery can not be used decisively, and that we don't want arty to be OP.

More over, the most enjoyable aspect of arty is really when you get lucky RNG and magically hit on the first shot or right in a group and it's a fun moment. Currently there is none of that spice because it just smudges damage over an area instead of where the shells land.

I really think the simple fix is to find a combination of fire rate and accuracy, that makes hit more deadly, but the result is generally the same. The only major and important difference is that direct/very close hits need to be more deadly, so that things can't heal forever and arty can play a more surgical role.

[IvN]

Ideally, 2 to 4 shells should be eliminating an entire infantry section in case of a direct hit

[Enigmatic]

Originally posted by busboy999:

I get the challenge. W:EE artillery was probably too potent. W:ALB it was near useless outside suppression but fired unrealistically fast. W:RD, in my opinion, was the closest they got.

I also respect that opinions on this will vary.

While I agree with you in EE. High point team games. Arty was insane. But, in 1v1 it's too expensive. Yes. It made it hard to make come backs. But honestly, it's fun. I think EE had the best setup between being useless in low numbers and cost to being absolutely demolishing. It also was the best of all 3 wargames for corrected fire. W:ALB was very guilty and so is RD of not needing recon to spot. RD is also very guilty of hand holding for recon.

[busboy999]

I'm personally OK with having unobserved fires be accurate; radar is an essential element of the counterfire fight. Its possible to have return rounds in the air before the enemy rounds start impacting in some cases. This is also why I'm perfectly fine with being able to see enemy indirect fires shooting without an observer; its replicating counter-fire radar.

Recon in general is a challenge in WARNO. Its essential, but I feel (can't measure though) that its hard for scouts to spot targets without exposing themselves.

Its all a hard balance. Eugen does it better and in a more creative way than anyone else short of a full blown simulator, so I'm not trying to complain. If I had a firm idea of how to dial it in better I would put it forth.

[Enigmatic]

the issue allowing arty to fire too accurately without needing spotters. Results in a situation where Arty is always useful. Or it must be toned down to prevent gameplay issues imho and it's always weak. Especially when veterancy effects re not emphasized there are not as many variables.

well they could play with cohesion. Make it 'win more' unit lol

[busboy999]

Artillery is always useful though. The ability to fire accurately on known (indirect fire or anti-aircraft points of origin) or suspected enemy positions is useful.

Observed fire is more accurate. However, unobserved fire isn't shooting in the dark, especially if the guns are registered (validated their position and accuracy).

Idea: guns that have been stationary for a period of time gain a bonus for unobserved accuracy?

In my opinion, current unobserved accuracy is fine. If artillery lethality is increased, it may justify a small decrease in accuracy.

Right now, my counterfire against unobserved enemy artillery never kills anything. Ever. Even when I mass fires on a single point of origin. Unobserved accuracy isn't the crux of the issue right now.