Why is artillery barrage half as effective as before?

[Risaldar Singh]

I am back

It is not a typo

It is a deliberate attempt to remove the massing of guns in a single barrage in a way that means almost certain destruction for anything under the template.

I'm sorry but this answer makes no sense and the change doesn't address the problem it aims to address.

It is concentrations where each target units gets hit by the sum of all attacks with no upper limit that are the killers. For barrages, there is one template per firing unit and the units in each template gets hit by the average number of attacks rounded up (now divided by 2). Adding artillery units to a barrage only makes it wider not more powerful.

Ignoring list maximums etc for the sake of argument, 10 units of Soviet 160mm mortars firing a concentration would hit each target unit in one template with 50 attacks. Meanwhile, 10 units of Soviet 160mm mortars firing a barrage would spread their fire over ten templates positioned next to each over and each target unit in these templates would be hit by 5 attacks in V2, now 3 in V4.

Yes ... it is also correct that if 1 FAC fails to order a battery/unit it can no longer be ordered by another FAC ... in that game turn.
This was a reaction to criticism that the game had slowed down dramatically due to too much off-table play.

Not a criticism we ever heard around our tables. And incidentally, you forgot to make the same adjustment for air strike requests, just for consistency...

Give it a try - it certainly makes you want to play to the next move speedily

No thanks. The old rule was just fine as it allowed for a very simple portrayal of various levels of support (organic, dedicated, general). I think we'll be hanging on to it. ;-)

[Big Insect]

Concentrations are concentrations - short delivery of a lot of munitions on a limited area.

Barrages are less concentrated delivery of munitions, generally on a wider area.

The two need to be handled differently. A barrage is not as effective as a concentration.
This is primarily why there has been a change, as under the previous rules the Barrage was felt to be far too effective and cost effective.

Thanks
Mark

[Risaldar Singh]

Barrages being too effective is not something I've ever heard or read. As has been pointed out, barrages tend to be little used unless firing smoke or looking for suppressions.

Again the maximum number of attacks against any target under a barrage is that of one artillery unit. Adding more firing artillery units doesn't make the barrage any more lethal, it just covers more area.

I'm beginning to think I'm being dense here and would appreciate an example of a "lethal" barrage with some numbers.  

[Cross698]

Interesting - in all the games I have played at my club, we have tried to base games historically and therefore not large numbers of batteries. In most cases therefore players preferred "concentrations" and multiple ones against the same target (each with its own deviation) rather than barrages of more than one battery, as they were deemed less effective, except with smoke. As the game penalises you at -1 for 4-6 assets and -1 per rocket or naval guns, so unless you had an FAO with a high CV which i think is 8, most would only risk 3, so a 150mm at 4 dice would have been 12 divided by 3 = 4 across a 20 x 60cm frontage? Against AFV (enclosed) needing 6, same with units in cover, yes units in the open, such as infantry, ATGs and the like would get hammered.
I'd be interested in how many batteries each side would be fielding and it is probable that excessive use of artillery, plus many FAOs may be the problem, rather than the echanics in my opinion.

[Steve J]

I've tended to use artillery historically, at least that's been the intention and I've not really encountered any issues. As mentioned in my last AAR, you have to be careful with game balance as seen in the effectiveness of bomber units. The same can be said for artillery, entrenched units etc. After all we all want to have a fun and challenging game that both sides can enjoy.

So from my perspective the rules work very well as written but, as I did with BKCII, I will tweak them to suit my personal gaming situation and interpretation of history.

[Cross698]

Agreed, it's about balance. I've not played CWC, but do have the PDF - and most armies are limited to numbers of Artillery - some 3, some 9, but the odd one that did not seem to have any limit. Ultimately I suppose it is at what level you are playing - if it's a Division then yes, you might have x amount of batteries to call upon, but I suspect individual battalion commanders would be screaming for it. Having read up around SWORD BEACH and the ORNE BRIDGES for DDay, certainly on a few occasions when the Paras were able to "communicate" for atillery and naval fire, these assets were unavailable as there were other fire priorities.   

[Big Insect]

Barrages being too effective is not something I've ever heard or read. As has been pointed out, barrages tend to be little used unless firing smoke or looking for suppressions.

Yes ... I think I am not making myself clear - we appear to be in agreement that in WW2 Barrages were (generally) less effective than concentrations. That is what the changes to the Barrage rules in BKCIV does - it makes Barrages less effective, deliberately.

(NB: Ignore Ian and the 66 dice incident - it was not a barrage but a scheduled artillery strike calling down all the guns from a number of formations - and it was a CWC game - Battle of Hanover - you can see a write up on the very good Cold War Commanders blog). My Dutch CO caught an entire East German Tank Battalion on a Autobahn bridge over a river using it as a choke point as anything that survived (none) would have been suppressed and under the guns of 9 Leopard IVs at half-range ... anyway I digress).

[Big Insect]

NB: for the big Cold War Commander games - we play full ORBATS and have Divisional Reserves off-table and on limited call. Hence what seems like a large number of guns.
But my Dutch force alone was 12,000 pts on-table and another 5,000 in reserve + air and Battalion HQ assets. These are huge 2 day games, often played over multiple venues.

This year we have 3 - maybe 4 sites - 2 in the UK (Grimsby & Slimbridge) and 1 in France and another in Australia - and we are fighting 2 days of combat on the Central Front just north of Minden (Hackett WW3 country) so lots of armour - although very depleted becuase it is now the 2nd set of 2 days combat - we rotate the sections of front - last year was 2nd time around for Arctic Front in North Norway.

[Dr Dave]

...in WW2 Barrages were (generally) less effective than concentrations. That is what the changes to the Barrage rules in BKCIV does - it makes Barrages less effective, deliberately.

In WW2 there was no distinction between a barrage and a concentration. Those are terms used in the rules but did not exist in WW2 arty doctrine. The order "fire for a bit but not tooooo much" did not exist. Arty had rates of fire that they'd try to maintain. Hence a slow rate with all a bttns guns firing at one point could be construed as a weak concentration. The idea that someone found 3 dice from arty too much to bear (but 2 is fine) is a bit worrying. The poor dears (joke)  

The German "time on target" is a concentration in bkc terminology, but it could be fleeting - sometimes just a few shots per gun - due to the threat of counter battery - either from allied arty or air assets.

[sediment]

Mark, I'm trying to follow your reasoning over the barrage vs concentration and it's not working for me.  Three guns firing a barrage hit an area three times the area of a concentration, so it used to be 3 guns with, say 3 attacks hitting with 3x3 or 9 attacks on an area three times the size of a concentration, so would hit with just 3 attacks on any unit in the barrage - now it's down to 2 - not a massive difference, but why the change?  No excessive hits there, just nuisance stuff, even at 3 attacks.

Thinking about the big games, for 66 attacks, you must have been calling in up to 22 batteries (assuming 3 attacks), so surely the FAO would have been calling in with at least -7 (calling in 21 batteries) so pretty near impossible to call in within the rules.  That was always the limiting factor to massed artillery was the -1 per 3 batteries to the FAO command roll.

Cheers, Andy

[Risaldar Singh]

The 66 attacks concentration was preplanned hence no calling in roll or penalty.

[sediment]

I played in that game, still not really sure how it worked as it wasn't a scheduled strike using artillery assets, so should still have needed to be called in.  Doesn't really change the comment that barrages are already diluted by their area without halving the value of the asset firing.  Now, a player would be better off scheduling a row of concentrations on fixed targets adjacent to each other and benefit from the full attack value.

[Dr Dave]

3x batteries firing a barrage. Say 3 attacks each. Area is 20x60 (3 zones, 1 per battery). Average per battery is 3, then half and round up = 2 attacks per target

If this was a creeping barrage the attacks are not halved and the template and the effect stays on - so creeping is better than standing

3x batteries firing a concentration, area is 20cm diameter, but the attacks are stacked = 9 attacks per target

[Cross698]

3x batteries firing a barrage. Say 3 attacks each. Area is 20x60 (3 zones, 1 per battery). Average per battery is 3, then half and round up = 2 attacks per target

If this was a creeping barrage the attacks are not halved and the template and the effect stays on - so creeping is better than standing

3x batteries firing a concentration, area is 20cm diameter, but the attacks are stacked = 9 attacks per target

Although not stated in v4, but eventually clarified in v2 was that each concentration should still each roll for deviation seperately. Anyway, I wanted the rational reasoning for the change and I think in relation to off table I'll stick to v2 regarding barrages.

[Dr Dave]

I think in relation to off table I'll stick to v2 regarding barrages.