In the game we already have one weighted unit type: the tank. Depending on if offense or defense, the tank's strength changes, with a stronger defense. Why not have two kinds of tanks, namely a main battle tank (what we have now) and some form of artillery or fire support unit? Basically, it would be the opposite of the current tank, whether the exact opposite or a different weight, I'm not sure, I'll leave people better at balancing than I to argue that one out. Also, perhaps both types should be buyable from the tank menu, and will both add up to the normal tank count.

approved for discussion.

This is a good idea that keeps in line with the KISS method admin prefers.

Make artillery and tanks share the same cap. So if you can currently have 10k tanks, you can have 10k tanks, OR 10k artillery, OR 5k tanks + 5k artillery.

It would give a little bit more diversity in terms of strategy in war, and is simple enough we could actually see implementation if admin takes to it.

Actually, thats a pretty awesome idea. Sort of like planes in a way; a cap on the total number of units, with two different types.

Artillery sounds like a great idea.
Maybe not the same cap. Possibly double it?

No, doubling it would just be an artificial inflation of power.

Artillery should be treated as just a different kind of tank. Tank currently gives a better bonus in defense than attack. Artillery would be the exact same stats but reversed. There's no need to double the cap just because you added another equal power choice into the mix.

i like the idea of artillery for a defensive standpoint and as a different kind of tank.

another, little more complicated, option would be to have tanks set up like planes:

we have different kinds of tanks from around the world and we could also consider doing it like we could have light tanks where they are manned by 3 men and heavy tanks where they are the full tanks.


however, i really think artillery would be an awesome idea

Good idea. I think that making war more strategic is important.
ATM theres a set routine of things you go through to win a battle,
tanks v artillery will make it more interesting.

I like the idea, and if I am reading his post right then I also agree with The Fallen that if this is implemented, having artillery being the one with stronger defense and tanks having the higher offense makes slightly more sense, yes?

Pretty much what I proposed a very long time ago, actually.

In terms of limits, I honestly would not see a problem with so-called "NS inflation". Recall that when navies were added to the game that NS increases for most nations were pretty significant. It's the old philosophical dilemma: if everything in the Universe double in size (including all measuring devices), would we notice?

As a point of reference:

Tanks - Tanks are powerful weapons that work in support of your regular soldiers in ground battles. Here are some specifics on tanks:

* You can purchase up to 10% of your soldier efficiency or up to 8% of your citizen population, whichever is less.
* Technology requirement = Level 10
* Purchase cost = Soldier cost * 40
* Base upkeep = $40 per tank
* Soldier battle strength = Number of soldiers * efficiency modifiers * 2 (stated here for reference)
* Attacking tank battle strength = Number of attacking tanks * 25
* Defending tank battle strength = Number of defending tanks * 30
* Attacking tank infrastructure bonus reduction = 1% reduction per 100 tanks up to 7500 tanks

Simply flipping the attacking and defending battle strength numbers would be too simplistic. For artillery, I would remove the Technology requirement (artillery has been around nearly as long as infantry). I would also lower the purchase cost and base upkeep (artillery is generally cheaper and easier to maintain that a tank). In terms of the Attacking/Defending battle strength it should indeed be stronger on defense, weaker on offense. It would also have a 'Defending artillery infrastructure bonus reduction' that would be the opposite of tanks.

The only problem I could foresee is that tanks will be useless in a nuclear war because if you wanted to do max damage you would only buy artillery. Make the price of the artillery more expensive and make the defense bonus for tanks better, so that it would be actually bought.

Hate to break it to you, but artillery has a unique ability to bust up tank and infantry formations that has been demonstrated time and again on the battlefields of the 20th and 21st century. If artillery has a major weakness, it is that it is relatively immobile relative to tanks (which can bypass it if terrain/other conditions permit) and when directly attacked doesn't absorb nearly as much damage as an infantry unit before becoming combat ineffective (gun crews tend to be exposed and less able to take advantage of cover and concealment once they start firing).

In the offensive, artillery is good for an initial barrage, but unless it is of the self-propelled variety it gets left behind--which is why the Germans perfected the art of using tactical aircraft to bomb in close proximity to their advancing mechanized formations--aircraft were a substitute for artillery. This allowed them to advance much faster than they otherwise been able to do so ("Blitzkrieg").

You could also simulate this effect by making artillery non-deployable. Tanks would therefore be absolutely necessary in the offense. Given that tanks can also be used in the defense (though they should be less effectively than when they are on the offensive), tanks present a good all around purchase for your military.

Artillery is only good against NON-MOBILE or DUG-IN/FORTIFIED targets. Trying to hit a moving MBT with anything less then a full kill box of MLRS rockets is luck unless you break Copperheads out of storage for the Paladin.

I would prefer if a mix of Tanks and Artillery would be the best.

Artillery as an offensive weapon make a bit more sense to me (less armored, longer range, often larger rounds), but in the end the name doesn't matter to me; I just want to see both offensive and defensive versions of tanks. Just something to throw a little bit of thought into the typical max soldiers/max tanks/attack mindset that ground wars are.


I think Hal was speaking about formations more than individual units. It's a lot easier to hit a tank in a line of 100 than by itself, you can just send shots up the line.

While there's a lot of truth to that, a battle on terrain that features natural choke points do provide artillery all kinds of advantages over an opponent. mainly being able to zero in on several areas that opposing forces have to come through from.

As to this idea, I think it's fairly simple and offers some flexibility in non-nuclear warfare. Plus, with the decom timer in play, it wouldn't be as easy as switching from a fully offensive to a fully defensive unit setting dependent on a whim.

I like this and I was going to write up something similiar but never got around to it, here's what I had in mind.

We keep the current ratio for buying tanks and just make it a general ratio for buying vehicles, so if you could buy 1,000 tanks now, then after this you could buy 1,000 vehicles of any type.

There would be three vehicle types, tanks, IFVs, and artillery. Each would have a unique damage bonus, and unique combat bonuses...

Tank:
Attack strength: 40
Defense strength: 15
Special effects: Increases enemy vehicle losses in all battles by 10% per thousand tanks(capped at 50%), increases captured land by 5% per thousand tanks.

Infantry Fighting Vehicle:
Attack Strength: 25
Defense strength: 30
Special effects: Decreases your soldier casualties by 10% per thousand IFVs (capped at 50%), increases captured technology by 5% per thousand IFVs.

Artillery:
Attack strength: 10
Defense strength: 45
Special effects: Increases enemy soldier losses by 10% per thousand artillery (capped at 50%), increases infrastructure damage dealt by 5% per thousand artillery.

This would force much more strategy in buying vehicles because each has a different use, obviously you want to buy tanks for your attack, but what do you buy to replace them? Obviously buying tanks would be best for attacking with the next day, but IFVs would be better for staying out of Anarchy, and Artillery would be best for all out defensive ability... This would add a huge amount of strategy without requiring any huge changes to the game code.

Couple in Seerow's combo limits and ChairmanHal's making artillery defensive-only or strongly defensive, and we got us a real winner. Adds strategy to army composition.

We need gameplay, not realism.

I would love being able to use and equip IFV/CFVs!

Interesting stuff, unfortunately it's all patching up a pretty poor war system which lacks any sense of movement, mobility and the strategies and tactics involved.

Hal and nc have come up with some interesting ideas but they're both limited by this lack of movement, no concepts of distance nor geography, plus infinite supplies of fuel and ammo and the basic CN concept that it costs as much to have a tank, aircraft or warship sitting around in peace as it does to have it deployed and fighting.

Yes, that was my point. Though I think that perhaps those that found themselves on the wrong end of a German 88mm flak gun would probably tell you that it didn't seem to have too much trouble picking off individual tanks...

There are numbers from various sources on the subject...

The British Official History (Vol. I for 1916, page 282) cites these figures:

Shell or mortar fire 58.51%, rifle and machine gun bullets 38.98%, bombs & grenades 2.19%, bayonet 0.32%

As the speed of war progressed the percentages changed somewhat with rife and machinegun accounting for a higher percentage. However, artillery in all its various forms, still accounts for more casualties in conventional warfare than any other type of weapon.

The basic difficulty is that CN was never really a war simulation. There are war simulators out there that do a much better job, though most all of them require client side software. It should also be noted that as originally designed the game did in fact include zones of control and some sense of movement, but as the number of nations increased, my sense is that it became increasingly difficult to simulate unless you wanted to separate people out onto separate virtual servers, similar to Envoy (which has its own troubles, believe me...).

So does including artillery fix everything? Heavens no. But it is a relatively easy include that adds a bit to the game. I'm not looking for Rome today, just a nice villa to start.

I do like this artillery idea. I was wondering, I think someone mentioned this already but could the artillery back up your infantry in war? Like use infantry and artillery at the same time? And maybe your tech could get you better artillery, for example 5-10 tech get you cannons and 50 - 100 gets you Howitzers. But all in all I support this idea...

Because flesh and blood creatures are still just as easily killed by mass artillery barrages. That skewers kill counts because dismounted infantry are included in kill counts from Tanks and Mounted Infantry.

Plus the 88mm was being used in a direct fire method, not artillery.

It would modify your defense and attacks in a similar manner to tanks, it would just use different modifiers.

One further item not discussed, assigning casualties to artillery. As previously mentioned, artillery is more vulnerable to attack than infantry or tanks, even other artillery using counter battery fire. It makes up for this in part by staying the hell away from the forward line of battle, if it can and in the modern era, moving frequently. That is not always possible however.



Tanks do in fact carry HE rounds to use against soft targets and machine guns to take out infantry. Shooting at soldiers with a 120mm direct fire gun is however overkill and generally not done. This does not prevent tanks from shooting at buildings and such, though again tanks and urban warfare generally don't mix. Tanks bypass infantry in fixed positions like buildings and let their own infantry or artillery deal with it. There are examples of this during World War II, when advancing American forces would bypass villages they were taking heavy fire from and have the artillery erase the village...

As for the flak 88mm and other artillery pieces used in a direct fire role, it should be noted that we're talking about adding 'artillery' and that would include both indirect and direct fire types. *Ideally* you would separate those, but I think most people are here to play a nation simulation game, not a war game, and don't care. Once again, I'm not trying to build Rome, just a nice villa. One day Rome would be nice to have, but it's going to have to be an incremental thing.

I know what MBTs carry, thank you very much. I also know how they operate in urban combat. I would very much appricate it if you drop trying to talk to me like some scrub.

Direct fire "artillery" is an AT Gun, not Artillery. The 88mm Flak either functioned as an AA or AT gun.

Many of you forgot the nukes, so if you come up with a sort of artillery/tank you have to consider what nukes does. As someone mentioned no one would buy any defensive weapon before an attack in a nuclear war. Everybody would buy the best offensive weapon in a nuclear war so if you think about anything like artillery/tank you need special abilities to incentive buying them of defence purposes.
You need to tweak it so everybody is not buying the offensive weapons only and rebuys the defensive ones after attacking and of course the defensive ones must have a benefit against nukes otherwise no one would ever buy any defensive at all as they will be killed anyway.

So you need at least two different types lets call them A-Tanks and D-Tanks.
A-Tanks
- very good in offensive, bad in defensive
- are 100% vulnerable to nukes

D-Tanks
- only good in defensive, very bad in offensive
- are X% vulnerable to nukes

The tweaking of that will be a pain anyway but the major problem is still how to avoid player buying only A-Tanks attacking and after that rebuy only D-Tanks. Forcing a 50% rule of buying one type won´t solve the problem. Limiting purchasing won´t work either. With the current battle system i can´t see any solution.

As a former U.S. Army officer (14B Short Range Air Defense) and amateur military historian, I deal with people of all levels of military experience from combat vets to people who think that a rifle is a 'gun', not a 'firearm'. My point was not to offend you, merely to carry on a conversation on this topic.

Direct fire "artillery" can indeed be an AT Gun. It can also be a towed 20mm Vulcan Gatling gun (aka auto cannon), which is not particularly intended to be used against tanks.

For the purposes of this conversation, "artillery" is abstracted out in a way that it includes a wide variety of weapon systems that serve a variety of missions.

There are some cheap tricks that can be done like significantly increasing the cost of D tanks while at the same time significantly decreasing the cost of A tanks for each GA launched that day. The number would be reset at the beginning of each day.

To give an example:

A-Tank and D-Tank have a base cost of factor 15 during peacetime and 13 during wars. As you can have a maximum of 12 GA against you and launch the same number attacks/day, the max cost is a factor of 25

Thus during peacetime your tanks will all be at a base 15.

Now we'll assume you have 2 wars going on, War B and C. During wartime if you have not declared any GAs and have none declared against you, the base for A tanks is 13 and the same for D tanks.

You launch 2 GAs on B. Because you've launched 1/2 of your GAs, the cost of (A:D) tanks alters to 19:7. Then C launched an attack, but fails and decides to not attack again. Your costs become 16:10. If all attacks are launched in a given day the result should end at 13:13, even paring.

Did you OP with the (PI)VADS, Chaparral or Avenger? (Perhaps even the Linebacker?)

It´s quite a good idea, but many nations won´t bother about the costs at all. For many nations it makes no difference if they pay 2m or 5m for a full batch of tanks. I know i won´t bother and would buy A-Tanks until i made all my attacks and then switch to D-Tanks.

And that's perfectly fine. However, that just eats up more of your warchest. That's a choice you make.

Trained on Chaparral, PIVADS, and Stinger. Avenger and Linebacker hadn't been introduced yet--Avenger was still in the testing stages and Linebacker was still not fielded yet. Funny thing is that I just missed out on being trained on the Sgt. York before it was mercifully canceled.

Artillery can be used in a defensive capability, no?

It was my contention that artillery is actually better in the defense than in the offense, so yes.

Did you operate from Bradleys or as light infantry? (Stinger training.)

In a jeep...two man teams. The idea was that you'd pop out of the jeep, camouflage your position then find a place nearby to wait. Once you popped a Stinger you ran back to the jeep and got the hell out of there.

Not a job for the timid. You were pretty much exposed to all forms of fire and commanding several teams as a lieutenant you had to get everyone placed (and make sure they could read a map...) with overlapping fields of fire.

I enjoyed training on the Stinger though. Easy to operate, could engage enemy aircraft in all aspects. When I found out that the Afghan guerrillas fighting the Soviets were given a quantity of them, I felt sorry for the families of the pilots....

Wow man, you are old school! Most Stingers I see now are either Linebackers/Avengers or Mounted on Bradleys.

Please keep this discussion about gameplay, you are more than welcome to discuss other matters elsewhere or in private.

My apologies.

Steering this back toward topic, perhaps at some point in the future mobile air defense units, along with tactical aircraft will be part of the game.

For now, I would be very pleased to see "artillery" added.

As for "offensive" and "defensive" tanks, the concept for these can be found in the French and British armies c. 1940. They proved...less capable than the German designs they faced, especially in terms of how they were deployed. The era that followed WW II was one of the main battle tank, an all-purpose weapon of armored warfare.

That said, light tanks and armored recon vehicles, both tracked and wheeled have been a part of armed forces since the post-World War I era. Rather than "offensive" and "defensive" tanks, what is needed are "light tanks" or "armored recon" vehicles. Cheaper than regular tanks, more capable in terms of firepower than infantry.

IFVs and CFVs, you're getting at.

Something along the lines of the M5 Stuart, the M551 Sheridan, the Stingray, the Soviet PT-76, or the French AMX-13 in terms of light tanks; the French AMX-10, British FV721 Fox, American/Canadian LAV-25 Coyote, in terms of reconnaissance vehicles.

The M3 Bradley CFV is really just an IFV without the firing ports for infantry and more ammo. I've argued elsewhere that APCs should be included in the game as an enhanced soldier unit with a bit more punch but with higher maintenance. I'm not sure how far that argument when though....

I love the idea. Thats all i have to say.

The Sheridan was an air-dropped tank, it wasen't "light". Shame the M-8 got canceled, now the airborne gets stuck with the Stryker. Plus the LAV-25 is an APC in the same vein as the Bradley which has been lacking it's firing ports ever since they added addition skirt armor back in the later 80's.

While it has already been said by others, I concur with the idea of adding artillery to the game if we make it part of the tank cap.

Arty for defense and tanks for offense. Though both should work for both in a pinch, just with weaker numbers if used in the wrong capacity. Tanks don't show their true strength until they are mobile and if you rush arty to the front it takes time to become effective as it works best in a static position in concert with other batteries.


As for the cap amount I'd be in favor of keep the current numbers or a minor boost of no more than 20-30%. Actually I'd like to see a minor cap boost if this was added, but definitely not on the scale mentioned by someone to double it. A small boost gives a bit more room for strategy for possible return attacks, given deployment constraints, without totally upsetting game balance.

This sounds like a cool idea, but when you think about it, the only people that could really benefit from this are those in the ~40k+ NS range, and once you pass near that mark, everyones gonna have nukes, and nukes make everything else, including artillery and tanks, completely useless and obsolete. Sure, there could be non-nuclear wars, but what are the odds when everyone has nukes they're itching to use?

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Even if artillery units count toward the tank cap (and they shouldn't, they should have their own separate cap), they would still have value to smaller, non-nuclear nations, who after all, buy tanks now.

The Sheridan IIRC ended up in the hands of armored cav units in addition to airborne units. They were light in comparison to the M-60A1 main battle tank. The best light tank ever made? Don't make me laugh.

Actually light armored vehicles are mostly wheeled these days, as the transmissions are easier to deal with and the tires for them are a lot better than 30 years ago. This brings up the LAV-25. The American version is indeed an APC that carries up to 6 passengers. The Canadian version, the Coyote, has a crew of 4 and is a true armored recon vehicle.

Light tanks would certainly be easier to handle then Artillery game wise being a seperate class of an existing weapon. But I don't recall ever claiming the Sheridan was the best light tank. But it could take a place in this artillery idea seeing as it's weapon was a snub nose 152mm howitzer.

Perhaps the seperate classes of tanks could have different effects, APCs could reduce infantry losses, Light tanks could increase enemy infantry losses and artillery could increase enemy tank losses. That way there's actually a decision to be made on what you want to buy for your nation.

I like this idea. It should be more than a defensive version of the tank, though. Maybe artillery could only be used in the first ground attack, after that it is displacing.

I like the idea of artillary being a defensive weapon only,
make it so you could have the total available like 5 or 10% of your defending forces.of course every body would buy them before they deployed but that in itself is a game strategy.once the forces are deployed you would not be able to rebuy artillary until you brought forces home,