Artillery spotting change idea

[umbro]

The main issue I see with many of the ideas above (and btw, I agree with the general thrust) seem to require the addition of new, non-combat units.

One could limit which units are capable of spotting for arty to leaders, HQs, command platoons, etc. dependent upon doctrine.

Furthermore doctrinal differences could be modeled by using the organisation tree differently for each doctrine. A flexible doctrine allows any unit under the same level as the organisational head of this artillery unit to act as a spotter (i.e. any unit under one level higher than the arty), whereas a centralised doctrine allows only units under the level of the arty unit to spot for it and any command level unit higher in this organisation.

umbro

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: umbro

The main issue I see with many of the ideas above (and btw, I agree with the general thrust) seem to require the addition of new, non-combat units.

One could limit which units are capable of spotting for arty to leaders, HQs, command platoons, etc. dependent upon doctrine.


umbro

I think that would be the best way to go. Leaders and command platoons at least. HQ's are to valuable to place in LOS.
IMO a spotting system is desperately needed. In each design so far I have had to improvise to get the effect of artillery somewhat realistic (not overly effective that is).

Huib

[FM WarB]

ORIGINAL: Borst50

If I am reading this thread correctly, all mortar and artillery units will need a FO to spot and call in artillery fire. I am then assuming the said FO, is the only unit capable of calling in artillery fire and must have a direct line of sight to the target. (All this under optional rules of course)


3) Supply. Because of their inherent detatched status from the parent HQ. They should be immune to the effects of supply. The should have a very minimal defense, but really no attack value, due to their small size and lack of heavier weapons. (A couple of rifles, or pistols, maybe a couple grenades). They should also be possibly be immune to morale checks, rather. automatically retreating when they come under fire. (if they arent destroyed by said fire outright!)

Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. I like the basic idea and hope it will be incorporated with the next update.

Platoon units can spot for arty/mortars within their own command heirarchy.

3) FOs from arty batteries should attached to the units they support. An arty battery in a Regimental Combat Team should have its FO units attached at Regimental command level, thus should be in supply.

[FM WarB]

Huib,
While HQs should not be realistically used to spot for arty as their role is supply, I don't know if they can be programmed not to see. Enough leaders, company hq plts (playing with command control) and FO units should be available.
Warren

(And I wont be the one doing the programming...

[FM WarB]

ORIGINAL: Borst50
2) The problem of actually spotting enemy FO's. As a rule they were usually 2 or 3 man teams sent out with radio equpiment to call in fire. Much like sniper units. The whole idea behind them is concealment. I am thinking one would have to make them like small AT units, invisible to enemy, unless someone actually stumbles on them, in which case, they should be treated like leaders alone in a hex.

This has got me thinking, which is dangerous, some say. I dont want to see a new Class of units. Prehaps a dismounted leader, transported by jeep or halftrack, etc would fill the bill.

[Borst50]

I think you may be right, a dismounted leader with a jeep transport would probably work in this context. I could actually live with that, but that leader should not have any real command function...but that may be problematic as to coding that within the framework of the game. Still it would an interesting addition.

[TAIL GUNNER]

But what about all these cool vehicles that spotted for artillery?



[center]SPW 250/5[/center]

[TAIL GUNNER]

There was even a Panther arty spotter (with a dummy gun)!

If there's a way to get these vehicles in the game and properly used for their intended role, I'm all for it.[8D]



[center]PZ.BEOB.WG.V AUSF.D[/center]

[FM WarB]

I should think so, and their allied equivalents. Some vicious tactical battles were fought for certain pieces of terrain because they were actual or suspected locations for FOs.

[FM WarB]

If such an optional change is introduced, I would like to see recon units considered. If they had better arty spotting (using LOS) capability than other units it would simulate their special role. They would become more than op fire fodder.

[Borst50]

generally speaking....at least within DGC's....only elements of recon battalions are on the map at any given time...usually a company of armoured cars or motorcycle companies...and what have you....so i am thinking not enough units would be able to be FO's, given the point system in place as to randomly generate support troops for your core battalion/regiment/whatever scale.

and to be honest, the more i think on this...the less sure i am that kind of system would work...at least within the framework of the game. coding issues...enemy AI....it can become a messy situation very rapidly. so perhaps this option can be used for PBEM and stand alone senarios only. but who knows? I have been wrong before. [:D]

[FM WarB]

This is a link to Fire and Fury's tactical WWI miniatures game artillery rules. The scale is not exactly the same, but similar. Note the the discussion and implimentation of different armies' doctrines

http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytut ... ytut.shtml

[junk2drive]

Matrix/Koios Panzer Command uses Panzer War rules www.panzer-war.com
 
Similar to Combat Mission in that Soviet arty delay is greater than German. Not as bad as CM though.
 
However PCs arty routine has been debated for change in their forum.
 
 

[FM WarB]

edit...WW II

[TAIL GUNNER]

The way artillery was handled in Steel Panthers was pretty slick.

If I remember right, every turn the area plotted for artillery was given a graphic symbol on the map denoting the fire zone.
Now, if the player wished to change this fire zone to another spot on the map, there was a delay for a number of turns which simulated the time required to re-plot the coordinates and physically move the guns.

The delay would be based on the size of the weapon, as well as distance to the new fire zone.

I suppose these parameters could also be modified to reflect the different doctrines of each country. So the delay for the US could be considerably lower than the Russians.

ChadG

[timshin42]

FM WarB

Thank you for this reference. It accurately represents many aspect of artillery. The Fire and Fury rules Game apparently makes a real effort to simulate artillery, and could serve as an initial model for looking at improvements to the JTCS artillery simulation. Come up with a trial model for proposed JTCS changes (Designer Function: what CAN done using the JTCS engine), run it by several experienced Redlegs, preferably British, German, French, Russian, American game players (SME Reality check!).

I am very much in favor of a change in game FA rules, but ONLY if done right. Just putting X number of FO (or FOO) graphical units, with X varying by national army, is nothing but eye candy, and does nothing to represent the differences in national artillery doctrines. It may be appropriate to mention that predicted fires (by the map, without forward observation) were a relatively unique American capability (thanks to GEN McNair), especialy early in the war. Further, the whole concept of predicted precision fires and observed fires was quite alien to Soviet artillery doctrine. To even begin to represent Stalin's "God of War" artillery requires a capabity to mass enormous amounts of artillery on areas, including moving barrages, all preplanned. Can THAT represented within the JTCS game? Even the US artillery had a good ability to mass predicted fire (of the entire CORPS ARTY and ARTY with the CORPS) on a target or group of targets with precision (Time-on-Target or TOT). Even that very basic capabilty has not been simulated in any computer War Game that I know of! But I can assure you that it was present in the BIG "board games" at Ft Leavenworth (C&GS College) during the '70s.

Jason has referred to the current artillery rules as "farcical" He may be right, but I prefer to think of them as "simplistic'. Is there room for improvement? Of course! But even simplistic rules are better than superficial. willy-nilly and silly rules!

[junk2drive]

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

The way artillery was handled in Steel Panthers was pretty slick.

If I remember right, every turn the area plotted for artillery was given a graphic symbol on the map denoting the fire zone.
Now, if the player wished to change this fire zone to another spot on the map, there was a delay for a number of turns which simulated the time required to re-plot the coordinates and physically move the guns.

The delay would be based on the size of the weapon, as well as distance to the new fire zone.

I suppose these parameters could also be modified to reflect the different doctrines of each country. So the delay for the US could be considerably lower than the Russians.

ChadG

Fairly correct. TRPs (Gold Spots) are also used. Of the 2 WWII versions commonly played today, they are at opposite ends as far as when delay occurs. USA has the least delay with one game allowing end of turn fire. Lots of bickering amongst players as to how arty should be fixed, lol.

The above is a short, simplistic, text. For more detail search those forums.

Keep in mind that some of us play vs the AI. Any changes must be something the AI can handle.

[Achsah]

                Hmmm[:-] I hope i'm not wet blanket here buta wich one of you guys are going to test all the old scenarios if complications such as this complication tweak is added? Making it optional certainly lowers the cost for sure but i see another layer of agreements having to be negotiated..endless debates about what is real or balanced etc in what is not a realistic game..just a well desighned one..ie off go our nails when we play..espeacially in online play. More work for jason to add something i doubt really matters in the overall picture..the game is already good..why fix it. In fact i'm sure its quite doable as a mod. Leave my game alone [:@] whats next? fuel for tanks?with that said i hope everyone is having fun[:D] happy toy soldier killing and breaking of electronic images in your fights.

[MrRoadrunner]

Pasha, you are a man after my heart! [:)]
 
Thanks for your comment.
 
RR

[Achsah]

[:D] someones got to do it

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Pasha, you are a man after my heart! [:)]

Thanks for your comment.

RR