Artillery/Indirect Fire Self Defence

[Ralf0206]

I would like to open the discussion to the difference in terms of the self-defence capabilities of self-propelled guns and the Allied mortar half-track, and very specifically, sound a grievance regarding a certain artillery piece.

While this game has an asymmetrical balance approach, all armies feature some basic and a few specialized units that fulfill the same role and can be considered each other's opposite numbers. Some examples are Riflemen <-> Volksgrenadiers, Jeep <-> Schwimmwagen, PZ3 N <-> M4 Sherman.
While all of them have different stats and abilities that make them special, they all fulfil a specific role in their respective armies.

This is where I want to shine light on a faction-wide difference, which can have an effect on the game that ranges from insignificant to game-changing.
What I am talking about is that allied SPGs and M3 Mortar half-tracks come equipped with a .50 cal MG equipped. In the case of the priest, it has a firing angle of 360° and in the case of the M3 Mortar half-track, it is a front-facing .50 cal machine gun.

That would not be much of a problem if there wasn't a distinct difference between these units and their Axis counterparts. While the Wehrmacht mortar half-track does have an MG42 equipped, it is facing backwards, making it only really usable when facing away, or turning around and running away.
I think everybody will agree that there are very few instances where you actually turn around your vehicle when you're trying to escape and will mostly opt into kiting away backwards. In these cases, the M3 mortar half-track is significantly more powerful, because it can continue blasting away at approaching infantry while kiting. The Panzerelite halftrack of course does not have any armament at all, but it is also slightly cheaper to produce, and I also believe it is more mobile. These armaments can deal significant damage to Axis infantry, which might try to take it out.

The same applies to SPGs. While the M7 Priest has a .50 cal MG mounted, the Hummel, the Gille, and the Wespe all do not have any armament at all.
In most cases, this does not matter as much since these units usually are further behind the line and do not have as much opportunity to use their direct fire armaments, there is the fringe case of using the US infantry doctrine infiltration squad or the US Airbourne doctrine paratroopers to drop in on them and take them out.
Axis both have less access to the enemy SPGs with specialized infantry and have a harder time attacking them, because of the nature of these armaments.

While I am not suggesting to remove those armaments, I would encourage the balance team to investigate the effectiveness of self-defence armaments. I am not certain if this would hit limitations of the modding engine, but simply making the top-mounted MG of the M3 half-track facing backwards would help alleviate this imbalance in unit makeup.

Last, but definitely not least, I want to just straight up complain about the 95mm Churchill.
It is the only artillery piece in the game that automatically fires with its main armament, it has an immense suppression effect on infantry and on top of it, it deals significant damage to any enemy tank. Have I forgotten to mention that it is also a Churchill? That means it cannot be reliable penetrated by standard AT guns or Anything up to the Panther/JGPZ4 L70.
While I understand its limitations being slow and having a relatively short range, but it’s tankiness and the nature of the damage it deals makes it incredibly hard to deal with.
Oh, and of course, it’s also more or less impervious to counter battery fire.
All I want you to do is to simply remove its ability to automatically fire at visible targets. No artillery needs to be able to do that. If you want to advocate for it to do that, I suggest you do the same for the Sturmtiger and see how much you like that.
If you made it until here, I want to thank you for reading though all of that, and I hope you give your input on this topic, or if you heavily disagree with some of the points I made, give me some ways to better deal with the units in question.

[Warhawks97]

I would like to open the discussion to the difference in terms of the self-defence capabilities of self-propelled guns and the Allied mortar half-track, and very specifically, sound a grievance regarding a certain artillery piece.

While this game has an asymmetrical balance approach, all armies feature some basic and a few specialized units that fulfill the same role and can be considered each other's opposite numbers. Some examples are Riflemen <-> Volksgrenadiers, Jeep <-> Schwimmwagen, PZ3 N <-> M4 Sherman.
While all of them have different stats and abilities that make them special, they all fulfil a specific role in their respective armies.

This is where I want to shine light on a faction-wide difference, which can have an effect on the game that ranges from insignificant to game-changing.
What I am talking about is that allied SPGs and M3 Mortar half-tracks come equipped with a .50 cal MG equipped. In the case of the priest, it has a firing angle of 360° and in the case of the M3 Mortar half-track, it is a front-facing .50 cal machine gun.

That would not be much of a problem if there wasn't a distinct difference between these units and their Axis counterparts. While the Wehrmacht mortar half-track does have an MG42 equipped, it is facing backwards, making it only really usable when facing away, or turning around and running away.
I think everybody will agree that there are very few instances where you actually turn around your vehicle when you're trying to escape and will mostly opt into kiting away backwards. In these cases, the M3 mortar half-track is significantly more powerful, because it can continue blasting away at approaching infantry while kiting. The Panzerelite halftrack of course does not have any armament at all, but it is also slightly cheaper to produce, and I also believe it is more mobile. These armaments can deal significant damage to Axis infantry, which might try to take it out.

The same applies to SPGs. While the M7 Priest has a .50 cal MG mounted, the Hummel, the Gille, and the Wespe all do not have any armament at all.
In most cases, this does not matter as much since these units usually are further behind the line and do not have as much opportunity to use their direct fire armaments, there is the fringe case of using the US infantry doctrine infiltration squad or the US Airbourne doctrine paratroopers to drop in on them and take them out.
Axis both have less access to the enemy SPGs with specialized infantry and have a harder time attacking them, because of the nature of these armaments.

Well, i think these spg self defence is not really of a big deal in late game. I barely see them fend of any real attack. And i also barely see in late game paratroopers being dropped just to kill one spg. The Mortar HT has maybe a better use of its cal 50 but personally i dont go for mortar HT´s at all. Too late, too expensive and too juicy targets for artillery which in many cases comes earlier and for a lower cost. I see people using them but usually only because their teamplay sucks because a mate usually already has arty to do the job. Inf mortars are usefull because they are cheap and can be recrewed. So again, a cal 50 doesnt really makes this unit more cost effective or less juicy to attack.

Last, but definitely not least, I want to just straight up complain about the 95mm Churchill.
It is the only artillery piece in the game that automatically fires with its main armament, it has an immense suppression effect on infantry and on top of it, it deals significant damage to any enemy tank. Have I forgotten to mention that it is also a Churchill? That means it cannot be reliable penetrated by standard AT guns or Anything up to the Panther/JGPZ4 L70.
While I understand its limitations being slow and having a relatively short range, but it’s tankiness and the nature of the damage it deals makes it incredibly hard to deal with.
Oh, and of course, it’s also more or less impervious to counter battery fire.
All I want you to do is to simply remove its ability to automatically fire at visible targets. No artillery needs to be able to do that. If you want to advocate for it to do that, I suggest you do the same for the Sturmtiger and see how much you like that.
If you made it until here, I want to thank you for reading though all of that, and I hope you give your input on this topic, or if you heavily disagree with some of the points I made, give me some ways to better deal with the units in question.

I would rather have it the other way arround. Such assault units with howitzers should mainly fire via direct fire but have also the capability to fire indirect, short barrages of like 4 shots over short distances for 50 ammo.

RE is a tricky doc. Its churcills can be painfully strong, but only if well supported. On the other hand recovering from losses is damn hard and you barely have anything else but these things to really push.

[kwok]

While I am not suggesting to remove those armaments, I would encourage the balance team to investigate the effectiveness of self-defence armaments. I am not certain if this would hit limitations of the modding engine, but simply making the top-mounted MG of the M3 half-track facing backwards would help alleviate this imbalance in unit makeup.

It depends on the limitations of the model. E.g. It's totally technically possible for the top mounted MG's to have 360 degree tracking. But, if the model itself doesn't have animations for that MG to turn 360 degrees then you'll see bullets coming out the side of the gun. I personally don't know every model, but give a specific list of units (lets just try 3 units for now) and what angles they should fire at and I can just poke around and check.

Everything else is about balance so would be good to hear other peoples' opinions.

[Ralf0206]

Well, i think these spg self defence is not really of a big deal in late game.

I agree with that. It's just that allies have them while axis do not at all.
And there are only fringe cases where it is relevant, but it is frustrating when you just barely get past the enemy defences to corner their SPG, only to have your infantry get blown up by the .50 cal.

The Mortar HT has maybe a better use of its cal 50 but personally i don't go for mortar HT´s at all.

Just because you don't use it, does not make it balanced. It is a powerful unit in a lot of situations and across many levels of play.

I would rather have it the other way arround. Such assault units with howitzers should mainly fire via direct fire but have also the capability to fire indirect, short barrages of like 4 shots over short distances for 50 ammo.

Making the 90mm Churchill more like the Sherman 105 or the Stuh?
Sure. But be sure to have its damage be in line with these other units. Both of them can exclusively target emplacements, so the same should count for the 90mm Churchill. But it also has a lower caliber gun, so it should actually deal less damage.
Come to think of it, there is already a unit in RE that fills that role, called the Churchill AVRE. But since that unit is a joke, nobody uses it and defaults to spamming arty with 90mm Churchills. The 90mm Churchill actually has no right to exist in its current form.

RE is a tricky doc. Its churcills can be painfully strong, but only if well supported.

It actually is not. Sure, it might be easy to counter the Churchills if you know what you're doing, but it basically either you have a counter or you don't.
If the enemy does not have an answer to it, you just win. But if the enemy fields a Nashorn, a Jagtpanther or even a Jagttiger, you're back to essentially being useless and spamming arty with your 90mm Churchills.

[Ralf0206]

It depends on the limitations of the model. E.g. It's totally technically possible for the top mounted MG's to have 360 degree tracking.

I think we're kind of on different pages here. I was under the impression that the M7 Priest has a 360-degree firing angle. If it doesn't that's fine.
What I actually want is the M3 mortar halftrack to either have its MG removed or changed in a way so it can only fire towards the back.

[Consti255]

Making the 90mm Churchill more like the Sherman 105 or the Stuh?
Sure. But be sure to have its damage be in line with these other units. Both of them can exclusively target emplacements, so the same should count for the 90mm Churchill. But it also has a lower caliber gun, so it should actually deal less damage.
Come to think of it, there is already a unit in RE that fills that role, called the Churchill AVRE. But since that unit is a joke, nobody uses it and defaults to spamming arty with 90mm Churchills. The 90mm Churchill actually has no right to exist in its current form.

Why doesnt it have any right to exist? The AVRE is most likely the "counterpart" of the 105 and StuH. The 95mm is a classic arty piece which uses indirect fire. While i agree its damage is high, it has also as you mentioned really short range. On top, it as a huge AoE on its salvos which makes it fairly easy to drive away from its impacts. A good advice would be, move ur fricking TDs and dont pray that they dont get hit?
On top, RE is a pure tank and emplacement focused doc with at max 17 pounders. Everything bigger than a Tiger would be nearly impossible to fight if you dont manage to flank with your coments (which also come super late if you go for churchills). And flanking imo is no valid balance point of view, since it is super hard to pull off and not reliable. The 95mm is nearly your only way of fireing indirect fire. So if you would nerf such in this arty dominat game, you would just spam emplacements, so your units wont get hit 24/7 becauser you cannot counter arty in any means.
Overall, i am against a change for this vehicle.

It actually is not. Sure, it might be easy to counter the Churchills if you know what you're doing, but it basically either you have a counter or you don't.
If the enemy does not have an answer to it, you just win. But if the enemy fields a Nashorn, a Jagtpanther or even a Jagttiger, you're back to essentially being useless and spamming arty with your 90mm Churchills.

Well, ever heard of shreks or panzerfaust? Axis has the upper hand with handheld AT and they are the reason WHY you should support your churchills.
The 95mm have a chance of hitting them with their direct fire ability, but they dont whipe sqauds. OFC the JP,Nashorn or anything else with bigger upwards the KwK42 pens the 95mm reliable, still a unsupported 95mm is just crawling deathtrap for the crew when you can use a AT sqaud.
And supporting such units is fairly hard, since CW infantry is so expensive to build and maintain.

[Ralf0206]

Why doesnt it have any right to exist?

Well, if you look at the doc, you can see that it has both anti-emplacements with the AVRE and rocket artillery to suppress enemy pushes. The 95mm Churchill is an addition to the doc pushing it more towards a defensive arty spam playstyle.

The 95mm have a chance of hitting them with their direct fire ability, but they dont whipe sqauds.

This happens more often than you'd think. And if they don't wipe them, they apply a suppression effect that renders you unable to pursue it.
I also don't know about this direct fire "ability" you speak of. The 95mm just... shoots. It's an arty that just shoots. That is the thing I have a problem with.

While I personally do believe that RE without the 95mm can also exist, I understand that removing it is a heavy blow to the doc. All I am proposing is to remove its ability to automatically target and fire at surrounding enemies.

If you want it to direct fire, give it a direct fire ability as every other SPG or artillery has. Oneshot, with a 20-30 second cooldown.

[MarKr]

While I am not suggesting to remove those armaments, I would encourage the balance team to investigate the effectiveness of self-defence armaments. I am not certain if this would hit limitations of the modding engine, but simply making the top-mounted MG of the M3 half-track facing backwards would help alleviate this imbalance in unit makeup.

It is true that allies have better protection on these units but this sort of "faction A has something but faction B doesn't" is present in more cases, sometimes it benefits allies, sometimes it benefits axis. For example, every Axis doctrine (if I remember right) has access to StG44s which is one of the best weapons in the game. It shreds stuff at close range, it is still very decent at long range and quite deadly at mid range. Allies have to either take SMGs to be effective at close range or rifles for mid-to-long range but don't have anything as universally good as the StG44. Axis LMGs for infantry are hands down better than what Allies have. I am not saying that Axis have better infantry weapons and so Allies must have better better protection of artillery units. I'm just saying that if you want to make the arty protection similar because "axis have it weaker" we would need to take a similar approach in all cases and make e.g. the mentioned weapons changed for allies because "allies have them weaker".

You can also take a look at other things - for example the strongest self-propelled arty that allies have is the Priest with 105mm gun. Axis have the Hummel with 150mm which is way stronger. So should it be as well protected as Priest when it has advantage in raw damage? Axis have rocket artillery with forward-facing MG coverage (Maultier) Allies have no such thing. Hotchkiss can carry 4 pretty strong rockets but at the same time it has a cannon that can protect it from light vehicles and it can shoot HE shot that can kill infantry - allies have no "mirror" unit to that.

So, should we change what you ask and keep these other things as they are? Won't that be unfair?

All I want you to do is to simply remove its ability to automatically fire at visible targets. No artillery needs to be able to do that. If you want to advocate for it to do that, I suggest you do the same for the Sturmtiger and see how much you like that.

Comparing 95mm Churchill gun to Sturmtiger is not very good example. The 95mm howitzer has AoE of 8 and deals 260 damage at the center, falling off when it approaches the edge of AoE. Sturmtiger has AoE of 18.5 and deals 750 damage at the center, falling off when it approaches the edge of AoE. It is not even the same category in performance.

It would make more sense to compare it to 105mm guns as the performance there is more similar. 105mm Sherman and StuH can both directly attack with their guns. There is the difference of Churchill shooting indirect barrages while these two can only shoot at range at emplacements but it is not necessary to have everything mirrored in the game.

[Consti255]

Why doesnt it have any right to exist?

Well, if you look at the doc, you can see that it has both anti-emplacements with the AVRE and rocket artillery to suppress enemy pushes. The 95mm Churchill is an addition to the doc pushing it more towards a defensive arty spam playstyle.

The 95mm have a chance of hitting them with their direct fire ability, but they dont whipe sqauds.

This happens more often than you'd think. And if they don't wipe them, they apply a suppression effect that renders you unable to pursue it.
I also don't know about this direct fire "ability" you speak of. The 95mm just... shoots. It's an arty that just shoots. That is the thing I have a problem with.

While I personally do believe that RE without the 95mm can also exist, I understand that removing it is a heavy blow to the doc. All I am proposing is to remove its ability to automatically target and fire at surrounding enemies.

If you want it to direct fire, give it a direct fire ability as every other SPG or artillery has. Oneshot, with a 20-30 second cooldown.

This happens quite rare even if it happens.
The suppression effect is negated by command units and vet. So either try one of them, or use elite units (like storms,FsR5 with commander and stuff) to break it with abilitys or fire up. Or maybe something better, try to smoke it.

You have Tulips, which are just direct fire shells/rockets. Which are unusuable in certain scenarios. So you would smiply smack this whole doctrine with cheesy unit placement, if you remove the indirect fire option from this unit.
I dont see ANY necessary reason for such change, since there are clear counterplay options and no raw stats that seem to high.
And i absolutely agree with Markr here.

All I want you to do is to simply remove its ability to automatically fire at visible targets. No artillery needs to be able to do that. If you want to advocate for it to do that, I suggest you do the same for the Sturmtiger and see how much you like that.

This looks like a angry wehraboo post too me, nothing less.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I can tell the 95mm Churchill is probably quite cheap for what it does.

And the mounted 50.cals still kill planes very fast sometimes.

[Consti255]

I can tell the 95mm Churchill is probably quite cheap for what it does.

And the mounted 50.cals still kill planes very fast sometimes.

idk, you experienced it ONCE out of how many games that the .50cal overperforms ?

Bring in more replayes where it clearly overperforms in AA capabilitys. Than we can tweak it gladly.

[idliketoplaybetter]

It actually does kill planes too fast sometimes, but it's less about fiftycal itself and balance, in my experience it happens with any AA in-game if timing and aiming angle was guessed initially

[Consti255]

It actually does kill planes too fast sometimes, but it's less about fiftycal itself and balance, in my experience it happens with any AA in-game if timing and aiming angle was guessed initially

that is true.
If you angle it well, AA does it job super deadly.
Ill keep an eye open on .50 cals that are good angled for planes and try to get some replay.

[tarakancheg]

that is true.
If you angle it well, AA does it job super deadly.
Ill keep an eye open on .50 cals that are good angled for planes and try to get some replay.

couple of vet-2 shermans+command car are as effective as an aa (just stack buffs lol).

[Consti255]

that is true.
If you angle it well, AA does it job super deadly.
Ill keep an eye open on .50 cals that are good angled for planes and try to get some replay.

couple of vet-2 shermans+command car are as effective as an aa (just stack buffs lol).

so you pay around 100 fuel for one AA which is normally just 20 fuel ?
On top you need vet.
I dont see a issue here. But i need to test it

[MarKr]

couple of vet-2 shermans+command car are as effective as an aa (just stack buffs lol).

Veterancy and command car bonuses apply only to the main gun, the .50cal is not affected by them at all, so no buff stacking.