Lonely artilliery

I agree.

In fact, player souldn’t able to conquer a country with lonely artillery. Only infantry and tanks can.

What are you talking about!

WW2 was all about unloading artillery onto the beach during an amphibious assault!  lol…

Again, we are forgetting the large scale of this game.  One artillery piece isn’t a single gun.  It represents an entire division of artillery, which could be 1,000-2,000 guns, plus supporting infantry, vehicles, support staff, etc.  It’s just primarily centered around the artillery guns.

I understand what you’re thinking,…but IMHO you’re completely wrong.

A single Artillery piece in this game represent a very large number of individual tubes of many calibers.

And let’s not forget the Marine artillerymen that fought on Okinawa and other islands that defended themselves with their own artillery bore-sighted on the enemy. I disagree with your thinking a “lone” artillery piece is weaker. It is definately an IMPORTANT and POWERFUL unit that deserves protection,…but I wouldn’t agree it’s weaker by itself.

“Tall Paul”

@knp7765:

Again, we are forgetting the large scale of this game.  One artillery piece isn’t a single gun.  It represents an entire division of artillery, which could be 1,000-2,000 guns, plus supporting infantry, vehicles, support staff, etc.  It’s just primarily centered around the artillery guns.

This.

From another angle.  In modern warfare, if we remove mobility from the battlefield, what is the deciding factor in battle?  Tankers might say armor, but I believe it is penetrating power.  High velocity means more destruction, and divisional artillery can REALLY bring the destruction.  Saying that artillery pieces are ‘vulnerable’ is discarding the fact that it includes some of the larges caliber guns in the military.  It is not defenseless.  In fact all personnel in the grouping would put the safety of those guns above the safety of themselves because they know those guns can save their units behind.  A lone arty gun is not a sitting duck!

A lone arty gun is not a sitting duck!

PLEASE…

Artillery is WORTHLESS in the face of an armor breakthrough.

There is a reason that guys who shot artillery in Afghanistan, got busted for wearing flip flops and hawaiin shirts, instead of combat uniform.

That said, the whole concept of an “army” is lost in Axis and Allies.  Usually an “Army” consists of a multitude of different groups, many times including but not exclusive to artillery, tanks, scout vehicles, etc etc.

Much like how a transport flotilla, isn’t just transports.

I begrudgingly have to agree that the single piece doesn’t JUST represent artillery.  BUT, I would love to see a rule, where if an Army group LOSES it’s infantry cover, that for a round, the artillery are at a disadvantage!

Oh I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about WW2 and not present day, by modern warfare I simply was referring to mobilized warfare IN ww2.

In WW2 it was artillery that gave you the best chance of knocking out enemy armor provided you didn’t have any of your own or some stukas to call on.  Artillery was king of the battlefield at least until the end of the war.

as proof:  remember that gun line Rommel assembled at Arras?   Some of those were of course 88’s, but he called on all artillery pieces, including anti-air pieces to STOP that TANK!

Are we talking long range artillery?  Or are we talking Anti Tank Guns?  I think that is the question…

Well considering the model is a 2/2 unit that beefs up another infantry’s attack to 2 I assumed it was basically a ‘gun’ heavy formation.  Anti tank guns, AA guns AND long range artillery.  Still I know of many occasions on the Ostfront where the only answer the Germans had for the KV series other than stuka strikes was concentrated artillery barrages.  From my recollection this was a strike delivered by all the true artillery guns of a division/brigade.

If we look at the military of the time, a division was allotted a certain amount of artillery…but that could be augmented by other formations and the Germans were famous for ad-hoc formations…

Remember this is a strategic war game based loosely on WWII history.  I agree with the others that the artillery ‘piece’ is representative of more than one gun.

Recall these are pieces that represent a strategic capability (an abstraction, if you will).

When the artillery piece was introduced, it was done to fill the gap between the mostly offensive tank and the mostly defensive infantry piece.  The best place was an offensive/defensive piece.  Offensive since it attacked at a “2” and boosted an other unit (inf) to increase it’s attack capability.  Defensive since it was 1 IPC cheaper than a tank.

Because cardboard counter games are no fun.  The plastic sculpts MAKE the game from my POV.

Think of the artillery as a ‘gun’ heavy formation.  Infantry can call on the support of an arty unit to increase their combat power, think long range.  The arty gun can support itself and 1 other inf because it’s got enough guns.

Also armor units don’t have infantry.  The only one’s to do it effectively at this time were the Russians by having their soldiers hold onto the exterior.  That’s why you see armies with Mech infantry, its a way to keep infantry mobile with the tanks and yet not be taken out by a machine gun.

I wouldn’t see it as complicated so much as cluttered.  Having a board with units that even represent divisional size would be insane.  Good luck though!  Perhaps you could go Army Corps but I would think that would leave out a lot of units.

perhaps another game at a lower unit level like Advanced Third Riech may be more to your liking.

I like the global view that is A&A.