The Artillery Division

[pgr]

So there have been grand debates about the ideal division structure. One of the big issues tends to be how much artillery should be included in a division, and how much should be floating independently in a stack.

My question, what are the pros and cons of having a division completely made up of Arty? Think of a corps stack of 4 divisions. Three divisions are made up of Inf and Cav, while all the corps arty is grouped in one division containing only artillery. My understanding is that if the arty has no line units attached, it behaves in the same way as "loose" arty for targeting and being targeted purposes... Plus the CP cost would be much less than having 12 or 14 guns floating around loose.

Thoughts

[Captain_Orso]

ಠ_ಠ _____ you hate me don't you ______





JK

During combat, units are picked--highest cohesion/power first--to toe-the-line. Artillery does not generally have that high of a cohesion. If your division is made up entirely of artillery, as a unit, it's cohesion will be low compared to infantry/cavalry divisions with high cohesion. Think of elite brigades and increases through experience.

That means it is rather unlikely that your artillery division would be picked to fight, other than in the best of circumstances--every single division is put on the line-- or all of your other divisions have already been mauled--and now your artillery division gets to toe-the-line just as you have practically no infantry left to defend the batteries against assaulting infantry aka Berserkers.

I see you don't like artillery very much either ... ಠ_ಠ

[Pocus]

A unit has a chance to be picked proportional to its physical size counted in hits, to his combat signature and with modifiers like low cohesion (dis incentive). In this regard, the artillery division should not have a particular problem.

But the problem will be if she is picked as a target by an enemy unit. There is not a single line element to protect all the supports there. This will be a slaughter probably.

[Captain_Orso]

Mille grazi boss

I'll have to go back and re-read the frontage rules

*grumble*smurble*mumble*















See, I told you, it'd get it's ass kicked!

[ArmChairGeneral]

A few thoughts (and I can't wait to try this out to see what happens):

1.) Artillery fire would be guaranteed to concentrate on a single enemy unit. This could be a pro or a con, depending on how you look at it and how the combat shakes out, but mainly a pro, and good reason for trying an all arty division in the first place. It might be possible to cause enough damage to a unit at range that you force a premature withdrawal check on the opposing side due to routing/shaken elements.

2.) As I understand it, units are more likely to target units that have landed hits on them previously, so an artillery division would quickly draw the attention of (probably) the largest enemy unit, since the artillery would land hits early in the combat due to their longer range. (Con)

(Also, I have never understood why loose artillery units do not draw the attention of units that they hit at long range; arty rarely take hits, which indicates that they are not getting targeted in this way. Would their being combined in a division affect this? Is this even a thing?)

3.) Ignoring any "returning fire" effect that may or may not exist noted in point two, an artillery division would have a smaller number of total hits compared to normal divisions fighting alongside it, so would have a lower (but non-negligible) probability of being selected as a target, which is still a con compared to not being targeted like in normal formations, but mitigates the con somewhat.

4.) Artillery have a high base hit chance (Firepower) relative to infantry/cav. Thus the multipliers from leadership give a larger raw increase to hit probability. It would make sense to give them your best Division commander since the commander's multiplier would give more bang for the buck.

[Gray Fox]

An artillery Division would pick a target unit (Division) and all of your artillery would attack that target. Artillery loose in a stack is supposed to attack the biggest target and then the next biggest target until every thing is hit once. Eventually big units, like the artillery Division, get assaulted. I can see a problem here with not having any combat elements.

Can something be done that works with a game mechanic to appear successful? Sure. If the program allows you to make 1+1=3, then someone is going to try that. It's just a game.

But it is still an historical military simulation too. I'm not a champion of no artillery in the Divisions because I'm a troll (well...). It's just that 1+1=2. Artillery should be grouped into battalions at the call of the commanding General in a battle so that you have one leader with a sledge-hammer and not a lot of guys with meat tenderizers. Combined arms does not mean to combine a lot of weak, puny arms. The lack of this little axiom for the Union probably cost them several important battles and prolonged the war. So either real world physics of war stuff applies or you can embarass your math teacher.

[pgr]

Well before posting this, I stared long and hard at the AGEwiki combat entry.

-
For artillery elements, there are tree cases*:
The element of artillery is in a unit which includes line elements and the line elements engaged into battle*; in this case the artillery will shoot at the same target (unit) as the infantry
The element of artillery is in a unit which includes line elements and the line elements did not engage into battle*; in this case the artillery will shoot at any enemy unit which includes line elements
The element of artillery is in a unit which does not include any line elements*; in this case the artillery will shoot at any enemy unit, with or without line elements.
Artillery does not have priority on "larger" units, but like in the general cases are more likely to pick a unit whose combined combat signature is higher.

This seems to imply to me that an arty only division, since it has no line elements, would have the same freedom of fire for each arty element as if they were all loose.
(or I'm wrong, and they all blast away at the same target unit...but it could be a good massed battery effect)

Of course if all those guns in one place makes it the most powerful unit in the stack, then everyone would be gunning for it :\

[ArmChairGeneral]

Fox,
Whether this SHOULD work or not is kind of moot, since no one has reported any results as of yet; it could easily be such a total disaster that in fact 1+1 ends up equalling zero. I suspect that in some battles the artillery division would come out relatively unharmed because they get lucky and don't get targeted, but that in a lot of cases they will get mauled. Hope someone can give us more than just speculation, I am not going to be able to get to it till next week. (Stupid real life! Don't they realize I have more important things to do? The Civil War isn't fighting itself you know!)

pgr,
Then it sounds like they wouldn't all target the same unit then based on what you turned up.

[Gray Fox]

Here's a .jpg of a battle with an all artillery Division included in a Corps. It's vanilla CW2. A Division can only have a General and 15 sub-units, so that's the number of 12-lbers involved. The Division did not do too bad, taking none of the hits the rebels inflicted and the only cohesion loss I can account for was from firing their own guns. This was an attack, so we still don't know how they would hold up in defense or under assault. One other thing, I tried an attack with just the artillery Division and they would not engage at all, so that's something to keep in mind.

[ATTACH]32561[/ATTACH]

I also have the battle log, but I don't see a way to attach a text file without just inserting all of the log. All the artillery targeted the Manassas Guard in the first round and then again only one unit, Cocke's Bde, in another round. The battle did go to range zero. During the assault phase, the artillery Division was not targeted at all. So pgr may be on to something by putting all of the stack artillery in one Division.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Thanks Fox! We can always count on you to man the empirical trenches!

Very interesting results.

The arty division did concentrate their fire rather than scatter it like the wikis imply. Also, I suspect that the lack of damage during assault phase indicates that either the artillery div was never chosen as a target by the reb brigades in the first place, or that artillery elements do not get targeted at all during assault phase (i.e. they effectively don't exist during assault phase). This may shed some light on how arty behaves in assault phase, which has been a murky area of understanding.

The artillery should have gotten targeted at range by one of the brigades on the first round due to "returning fire" since they presumably landed the first hits of the battle, so either there is no return fire mechanism, or it doesn't apply to hits dealt by support elements.

It is still possible that the CSA brigades just randomly chose the larger infantry brigades as targets, rather than the arty being "invisible." Without taking combat signatures into account (I think in CW2 all combat sigs are the same, but I have a poor understanding of that mechanism) the unmodified chance to target an infantry division is roughly twice that of choosing the arty div based on the size in hits reported in the log, or an ~15% chance of choosing the arty each time a targeting roll is made.

Your experiment also cleared up another question I have had about the engine, and that is whether or not targets are re-selected each round or whether they stay the same the whole battle: since the arty switched targets, the targeting apparently happens round-by-round. Since that means a lot of enemy targeting rolls were made (several brigades times several rounds), it is unlikely that the lack of damage to the arty is a random result, and that there is something going on with their status as support units that prevents them from being selected.

I would be willing to bet that if you put even one combat element into the arty division that it would get targeted (at least at range) and take a lot of hits. I wonder if the hits would all go to the combat element or be spread to the arty.

Cocke's Bgde took a lot of hits, but on a later round with only one fire phase, and presumably they got attacked by a division as well. How hard did the Manassas defenders get hit, and was it enough to shake/rout/destroy any elements?

It appears that 1+1=3 after all I guess the floor is now open to the question of whether this is an exploit or not. (And to whether the results are better, equal or worse than a conventional set-up would have given.)

[Gray Fox]

Thanks!

The Manassas Guard was wiped out.

What I plan to do next is go back and fight the battle with the artillery loose in the Corps and see what difference it may make in the number of different units targeted.

The artillery only have about a 20% chance to hit and perhaps twice that if entrenched (the CSA guns had level 6 entrenchment for about 46% to hit chance). So I still would rather have 17 assault capable elements in a combat Division. A Division of artillery aren't going to hit any more or less than loose guns. You certainly save on the CP's, but let's see if loose guns fire at more than one target.

[pgr]

Well there another quote from the agewiki, that I didn't cite before because I wasn't sure if it applied to selecting what unit to attack or what element to attack...

Once an enemy unit has been chosen, a random element will be picked, but at the beginning according to this strict order of priority :


Land combat

- First, among any non-cavalry combat element (including artillery, provided it is in a unit with "line" elements),

- If none if found, then, among any cavalry element

- If none if found, then, among anything else - including leaders, supply wagons, artillery not attached to a line element,...)

Based on GF's little test, this must govern unit selection... therefore if no line element is present, the artillery division will never be selected as a target as long as there are no line or cav units inside. (Though in 1.05 this might change, since Pocus has added an experimental "counter battery")

For the testing GF, see if you can't find a leader with an artilleryman trait to build the division around.

of course at the end of the day, I might actually prefer all my guns concentrating fire on one unit (division) because that should give a better chance at killing off whole elements... and thus helping with promotions and NM.

[ArmChairGeneral]

pgr,

I've always thought that section was pretty confusing, too. It seems to be trying to explain how a hit is allocated within a unit that has not taken any hits yet ("at the beginning;" after it has taken damage hit-smoothing affects where the hit goes). So, the unit was selected in the targeting phase, then the when a hit is applied to the unit it gets distributed to an SU (element) in the order listed above (this section is why I have talked the idea of infantry acting as meat shields for cav in cav-heavy divisions vs having an all-cav division).

But the snippet mixes its terminology, so it is hard to tell what it is supposed to mean. I always figured it wasn't talking about Unit targeting because it conflicts with how other parts of the wikis explain unit targeting as being weighted by size in hits (and preferring units that have landed hits on it).

Curiouser and curiouser....

[minipol]

Interesting idea. Ideally we should compare the number of casualties in the situation where you have a artillery division to having the artillery stationed inside the divs.
To go a step further, a third possibility is not have arty in the divisions and at corps level.
That would be an interesting comparisson.

[Gray Fox]

I tried the same attack with a brigade of two infantry elements and a sharpshooter element added to the artillery Division. The Division then took its share of the hits, but they all went to the added infantry brigade and none to the guns.

I also tried the same attack with the artillery loose in the stack. The guns all fired at one target per round the same way they did in an artillery Division. So there is no targeting advantage to having loose artillery in the stack versus in a Division.

In 1861 prior to Divisions being available, an army stack might be the only place where extra loose artillery works. Initially, after October '61 you probably would get better mileage out of your starting pool of Generals by having combat Divisions instead of an artillery Division.

By the time the Generals of the class of '62 show up, you should have more than enough leaders to be able to form artillery Divisions from that point on. As someone already posted elsewhere, this gains the effect of a Division leader to the artillery. You also get the benefit of the savings in CP's for the stack. One thing to remember is that 15 batteries in one Division is close to the limit for artillery frontage in most terrain/weather. So if you have three stacks do a synchronized attack and each stack has an artillery Division, then most of the guns won't get used.

***

Artillery in CW2 are not the meat grinders that we have today. If you attack with two dozen artillery batteries added to the fight, the guns are not going to shred the enemy. What happens is they do add extra hits that you would not otherwise cause because the guns use extra frontage reserved for support units. They are a little more accurate in an entrenched defensive position than in the attack, but a hit still only does a couple points of damage and some cohesion loss.

I still believe that assault Divisions would be better off with a few cavalry and the rest of the elements from any of the infantry types. Garrison Divisions may get away with intirinsic artillery due to the entrenchment bonus to cannon fire. In the above test with an artillery Division and one single infantry brigade, the infantry got wasted. So the more infantry you have in an assault Division, the better the Division will be able to "take a licking and keep on ticking".

Apparently, artillery will fill the frontage reserved for support units no matter where they are in the stack. Artillery get picked if they are in the assault Division, loose in the stack or in an artillery Division by themselves. The artillery Division seems to have the most advantages over the other options as far as leadership bonus, CP economy and concentration of elements that do not contribute to the assault in one place.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Fox,
Nice analysis, thanks for your work on this!

Based on Fox's testing, I think we are getting close to an answer to the all arty division question: a minor combat advantage (due to the division leader bonus), no change in frontage and targeting behavior, more efficient CP usage, and easier to manage in the interface (only one unit versus many loose units).

Based on Pocus's comments, my opinion is that an all arty division should probably be classed as a minor exploit: the intention was that the all-arty division should not be a good thing, but the advantages to using one is not overwhelming.

Observation: Arty divisions would benefit the South relatively more than the Union since CP management is more difficult (fewer corps commanders) for the CSA.

[Mickey3D]

Nice analysis, thanks for your work on this!

+1

[Gray Fox]

Thanks to pgr for advancing the idea.

[pgr]

Based on Pocus's comments, my opinion is that an all arty division should probably be classed as a minor exploit.

Well I think exploit might be a bit harsh... just more efficient management. I tend create mixed divisions, because I like them to be self contained all arms units which allow me to attach and detach them to corps without too much trouble. I suppose though that you could argue that if you are are dealing with big armies, and you keep your corps together, there might be something said for unique divisions...all inf together, all cav together, all arty together.

The last thing that interests me is naval bombardment. Fleets that run batteries, tend to concentrate their fire on one gun unit. If the guns are loose, that means you generally loose a battery. I'm assuming if the batteries were grouped together in a division, the hits received would be spread out over all guns. (And perhaps the guns would concentrate their fire on one ship unit...increasing the number of ships sunk.) If there is an exploit... it might manifest itself in the naval bombardment part.

I wouldn't mind it, since land batteries tend to be glass jawed.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I will defer to your judgement on exploit or not: that's more an issue for multiplayers than for us SPers. We can play any way we feel like!

I would like to know about naval bombardment too. Would being in a combined arms division have the same effect you are hoping for as an all arty division (spreading hits to multiple batteries)?

(And, like Fox said, thanks for the interesting idea, I learned a lot!)

[minipol]

Thanks Fox for the analysis.
I agree with pgr, its just better management. Maybe Athena should start using it too if possible.

[pgr]

I have had a mixed division with guns do naval bombardment, and the guns take all the heat.

[ArmChairGeneral]

pgr,
Right, sorry, I meant does a specific battery take all the heat, or does it get spread to all of them because they are in the same unit? That's the effect you are hoping for, right? (I wouldn't have expected combat elements to take any hits, I was unclear in my wording.)

[pgr]

I'm pretty sure the damage was spread out.

[Gray Fox]

As a post script, the NATO symbol for an artillery Division is not used. If you choose to have a Division with only artillery you will get the infantry Division symbol. FYI, the infantry symbol of an "X" represents crossed rifles or muskets, the artillery symbol of a black sphere represents a cannon ball and the slash symbol of cavalry represents a drawn sabre.

[Skibear]

Out of interest, actually I believe the origins of the symbols relates to the traditional crossed X webbing straps for infantry & a single webbing strap for cavalry, related to the uniform but for the carrying the sabre as you suggest

[Merlin]

I'm curious to see how this performs under the new public beta with counterbattery fire.

[Gray Fox]

Well the current symbol that infantry officers wear is crossed rifles and the symbol for armored cav is something with crossed sabres with a tank IIRC. Maybe they needed something more macho.