The Great War: Western Front™

The Great War: Western Front™

查看统计:
Ploof Ploof 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 6:15
Airburst artillery
Is it just me or is the the airburst upgrade pointles? That thing costs 70 supplies to use to achieve something that 2 rounds of regular shelling with heavy artillery does at a much cheaper cost...

Has anyone found a use for it that isn't gross rescource mismanagment?
< >
正在显示第 16 - 30 条,共 35 条留言
Yuithgf 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 8:53 
引用自 Jonnydodger
I don’t think airburst shells specifically mean shrapnel shells.
In ww1, i don't know a type of airburst shell that wasn't shrapnel. They may have existed, i assume they were rare. From what i recall of the visual effects in game, it definitely looks like it's what theyre emulating.
Yuithgf 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 8:53 
引用自 ROGUE PloofPloof
We're going a litle off topic here >.>
No one thinks they're well balanced so it's expected.
euriska_28 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 11:40 
引用自 Jonnydodger
AI doesn't upgrade it's trenches in the campaign. If it did, the soldiers would be much better defended and would necessitate the need for air burst.

I finished a campaign and the AI did upgrade its trenches.
最后由 euriska_28 编辑于; 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 11:40
euriska_28 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 11:42 
引用自 ROGUE PloofPloof
Is it just me or is the the airburst upgrade pointles? That thing costs 70 supplies to use to achieve something that 2 rounds of regular shelling with heavy artillery does at a much cheaper cost...

Has anyone found a use for it that isn't gross rescource mismanagment?

The airburst upgrade pays dividends once you get a ton of supplies in your reserve. You can airburst the crap out of the enemy trenches and it is MUCH faster to overrun positions. The same with mustard gas. I used this to awesome effect. But again, you have to have the supplies.

Granted, you still will spend a lot more supply, but if you have 1000s then it's moot.

I don't know, once I have the supply capability I would rather spend more to get a bigger punch.
最后由 euriska_28 编辑于; 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 11:46
Jonnydodger 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 11:49 
引用自 euriska_28
引用自 Jonnydodger
AI doesn't upgrade it's trenches in the campaign. If it did, the soldiers would be much better defended and would necessitate the need for air burst.

I finished a campaign and the AI did upgrade its trenches.
It should do it more often
Fortus Victus 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 1:40 
To close off the irl discussion, metal helmets had more to do with blast protection than straight shrapnel (overpressure from arty kills more than shrapnel) and yes, by WW1 they were largely ineffective because of improved design of fighting positions, even a basic foxhole is safe from incoming airburst from long range (mortars or close high angle is a different story). And yes, head injuries did increase because survival rate increased just as modern warfare produces far more amputees and quadriplegic injuries as the survival rate in the first hour has improved so dramatically.

As far as the game, I'd be fine if airburst rounds just did significantly more damage to troops in the open. On elite difficulty enemy troops are crazy armored and human wave attacks work very well against your men because they simply can't wear them down like on soldier difficulty. Two heavy precision barrages on an incoming regular infantry unit does next to no damage even if you time it right.
Marius 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 2:49 
Shrapnel did obsolete itself in 1914 by being so damn devastating against troops in the open that everyone started to dig in. Then it was pretty useless (unless against attacking troops, etc).
So, airburst was very effective, but after 1914 there were only few situations left where it could shine.
And in 1918 gunners apparently lost the know-how to effectively use shrapnel when there came some movement again.
Because its not that easy to time well, and they had been shooting "simple" HE for 4 years, the skill wasnt needed anymore.
Yuithgf 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 3:40 
引用自 Marius
Then it was pretty useless (unless against attacking troops, etc).
Thats a pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ big ''if''
引用自 Marius
And in 1918 gunners apparently lost the know-how to effectively use shrapnel when there came some movement again.
Ah yes they lost the know how because they had been firing HE instead, compared to the period prior to 1914, where they were firing...???
(yes in 1914 a few would be trained artillerymen who had some practice, the majority wouldve been conscripts with little to no experience.)
aArr 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 3:52 
引用自 Marius
And in 1918 gunners apparently lost the know-how to effectively use shrapnel when there came some movement again.
Because its not that easy to time well, and they had been shooting "simple" HE for 4 years, the skill wasnt needed anymore.
By 1918 infantry tactics changed, troops were in much smaller squadrons and more dispersed in general, far harder target then in 1914.
Marius 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 3:52 
Well, before 1914 (and in 1914) they had been firing Shrapnel against troops in the open... and then there were no troops in the open anymore.
I also think that conscription is not that important to artillery as it is to infantry. You need well trained gunners, and can use some conscripts as support. In contrast to infantry, that just needs millions of men as replacement.
Of course those well trained gunners will have losses, and be replaced by new, less well trained men. Which learned the important, trench fighting stuff. And in 1918 werent necessarily that good in shooting shrapnel.
Yuithgf 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 3:55 
引用自 Marius
Well, before 1914 (and in 1914) they had been firing Shrapnel against troops in the open...
Who were we firing air shrapnel at before 1914???? Keep in mind, your theory goes that it apparently takes 3 years for entire armies to forget how to use time fuses properly.

Also, just to make it clear, all shrapnel isnt air burst.
Marius 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 4:07 
引用自 Yuithgf
引用自 Marius
Well, before 1914 (and in 1914) they had been firing Shrapnel against troops in the open...
Who were we firing air shrapnel at before 1914???? Keep in mind, your theory goes that it apparently takes 3 years for entire armies to forget how to use time fuses properly.

Also, just to make it clear, all shrapnel isnt air burst.

Are you talking about shrapnel as in splinters from grenades? Then, you are right, they originate from a lot of stuff.
But if we are talking Shrapnel as in the grenade invented by Henry Shrapnel, then those are air burst. Ideally.
And as he incented those in the 1780s, there were quite a few wars were Shrapnels were used. Waterloo, for example.
"Forgetting" is probably a strong word. They werent that good anymore. They lost a lot of the guys who were trained to shoot that, the new guys mostly werent trained that well. Infantry formations got smaller and more mobile. Probably they didnt even have the ammo around anymore, they had more important stuff to produce.
Its not a total loss of that skill, but in the end of 1918, as warfare fairly quickly (for WW1) got fairly mobile (for WW1), they didnt have it.
Yuithgf 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 5:34 
引用自 Marius
"Forgetting" is probably a strong word. They werent that good anymore. They lost a lot of the guys who were trained to shoot that, the new guys mostly werent trained that well.
The new guys have been shooting at enemies for 4 years. Plus shooting a gun isn't rocket science, follow the damn manual.
引用自 Marius
Infantry formations got smaller and more mobile.
That here is probably the best guess you got.
引用自 Marius
Probably they didnt even have the ammo around anymore, they had more important stuff to produce.
I cannot convey how much shell production ramped up during the war. Do you have anything to indicate that they dropped shrapnel production?

Just. Go here, page 130, look at ''75mm field-gun shrapnel''.
https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/wwi/historical_resources/default/sec04/PDF/AmericasMunitions1917-18.pdf
Maybe we just disagree on what a significant amount of shells is.
Marius 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 6:29 
引用自 Yuithgf
引用自 Marius
"Forgetting" is probably a strong word. They werent that good anymore. They lost a lot of the guys who were trained to shoot that, the new guys mostly werent trained that well.
The new guys have been shooting at enemies for 4 years. Plus shooting a gun isn't rocket science, follow the damn manual.
I disagree with you at this. Gunnery is a science. A good crew can make all the difference. And training makes good.
And those 4 years they didnt have exactly time to train those crews like in peace time. Getting a shell to burst in the air exactly where you want it is not as straight forward as lobbing HE into the ground. For which you need a good gunner as well, if you want to hit. Not as good as, like, in Naval gunnery, but still.
Marius 2023 年 4 月 4 日 下午 6:36 
You know, this isnt a hill I am necessarily willing to die on. I once read it somewhere, and I found it logical.
I am now skimming through 800 pages of US ammo production, because my night shift is rather boring. :)
< >
正在显示第 16 - 30 条,共 35 条留言
每页显示数: 1530 50

发帖日期: 2023 年 4 月 4 日 上午 6:15
回复数: 35