Artillery killed 60 % of all casualties.
Tanks killed 10 % of all casualties.
Planes killed 10 % of all casualties.
The rest was killed by small infantry arms.
Now you go figure.
Oh, and gimme a + karma
i did give you plus one karma
but i still contend that artillery was decisive.
There is alot that goes into the combat factor besides how many causalties a weapon causes.
Tanks in breathrough for instance alow you to destroy the enemies rear, communications and supplies, and perhaps put artillery and infantry into a good postion to kill lots of enemies.
and airfract may not have killed alot of enemies but they could easly take out enemy artillery and tanks which could
Sure artillery killed alot of people, but i just have never heard of a battle were it was the deciding factor.
Sure artillery killed alot of people, but i just have never heard of a battle were it was the deciding factor.
Read “Battle of Berlin” by Anthony Beeavor
I think artillery still kills around 50%.
I’ve given up on karma, btw.
For me, heavy artillery =
Cost 4
Move = 1
Attack and defend at 3 or less.
regular 2-2 artillery costs 4. Since the new Post Revised Tank costs 6, any Heavy Artillery should be 3-2, move 1, cost 5.
regular 2-2 artillery costs 4. Since the new Post Revised Tank costs 6, any Heavy Artillery should be 3-2, move 1, cost 5.
yes this must be the new norm for the upcoming games. exactly. 3-2-1-5.
The key debate is whether artillery is better at aiding defense or attack of infantry, so it should boost them in what way?
I can see it aiding them in both regards, but against tanks defense, but against other infantry attack.
perhaps Hvy art can boost EITHER attack or defense of infantry???
i like this choice. makes them really useful.
Yeah, but what about dive bombers boosting tank defense?
well larry has it with them boosting the attack of the fighter-bomber +1 with tank. I think the idea for house rules is best to add something than to take away another thing and to try to keep it consistent:
Art +1 to infantry attack
Tank +1 to Fighter-Bomber attack
Heavy Art +1 to either infantry attack or defense?
I think it only makes sence to introduce heavy artillery if you also introduce fortifications. Heavy artillery should only really be good on the offensive against these foritications, if you want to represent heavy anti-tank weapons like the 88, there should just be a anti-tank unit, while heavy artillery should reprsenent rail guns and siege guns. Heavy artilllery might also represent costal artillery, and along with fortifications be able to attack ships in an amphibous assault.
yes thats true indeed
I concur. Shore artillery is needed, but should all HA be able to shoot at ships? I think a dedicated unit is still needed.
I am having panzer painter commission some “Atlantic wall” gun emplacements. lets see what he comes up with.
Well heavy artillery for me means katyusha rockets,nebelwefer and 155mm long tom.
heavy artillery attack and defend on 3. May choose is target in the first round fo combat.
Well heavy artillery for me means katyusha rockets,nebelwefer and 155mm long tom.
heavy artillery attack and defend on 3. May choose is target in the first round fo combat.
that just seems like another way to do regulare artillery.
And I agree I would rather have a rocket artillery unit than siege guns, but i think rocket artillery would have a more offenisve nature, not just generaly good.
