Artillery Spotting

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Lesbaker

As can be seen the way that Artillery is perform by JTCS at the moment where every Manoeuvre unit can direct fire on to a target conforms well with the way British Artillery was setup near the end of the war; except that they should only be able to call on their Divisions assets, However for early war years most Infantry Divisions had very limited communication with their Artillery and relied on the BC's and FOO's attached to their unit HQs.
Les.

Gents:

So; when we boil down Lesbaker's huge post, the conclusion from a game play standpoint is that; with the exceptions of Infantry Divisions during the early war years and Divisional Command, the current JTCS artillery spotting rules accurately depict British artillery spotting functions.

I also read an earlier detailed post that referenced American artillery and the conclusion was that current JTCS artillery rules modeled the American WWII artillery spotting capacity in an accurate manner.

Again; I caution JTCS players who are clamoring for fundamental and rapid change to the current artillery spotting rules, to evaluate "why" you want these changes - especially with so little regard to the impact to game play.

[qbert55]

I agree with those on the side of avoiding the proposed spotting changes. There are other changes that I think would make the game more playable and that would be a better investment in time. For instance, I think it would be a better use of time to improve the AI. One change would be to adjust the AI play so it does not spend so much time moving trucks and leaders back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth...

If I had my druthers, this change would be much higher on the priority list than the proposed arty changes.

[countblue]

6. GERMAN

-- High emphasis on preplanned fires-- on a small scale but with higher concentrations.
-- rolling barrages maybe but never as effective as the russians
-- FO should be of importance, subordination of FO under leading assaulting unit (tank)
-- less effective predicted fires on the eastern front(by the map).
-- TOT capability only for units under one command

A: Corps Level
In general german artillery was rare (compare those strength numbers to the allied).
Germans had no heavy Artillery over 15cm with their divisions, those units were all "Heeresartillerie" Corps units.
All this units had forward observers that were attached to the Commanding Officer in charge ususally the Leader of the tank unit which conducted the assault.
Excessive communication support was standard, radio and wired.
In the beginning of the war many times an Luftwaffe Liason officer would accompany them commanding a Stuka "Flying Artillery" commando.

B: Divisional Level
Because of the shortage of artillery, in defensive situations the artillery battailon from each division would be many times split up into its companies attached to the regiments, then sometime no fireconcentration was anymore possible because the local commanders would object and rather keep "his guns for his men".

C:Regimental Level
The small stuff like the regimental and battailon grenade launchers were usually under the command of their units and were fired most of the time with LOS ín direct support mode. They were of relative unimportance in terms of "artillery support" on a bigger scale.

BTW
I think the germans had a harder time with their fire by the map since maps of the eastern front were many times not as reliable as the rest of europe.

Just what came to my mind, I hope its somehow useful.
-----------

I am actually satisfied the way arty works in the game so this post is just for
information not an argument for new rules.

CB

[CaptainHuge]

I agree with those that caution against affecting the game play too much. One of the things I have found about the Campaign system is that it has captured that rare balance between historical accuracy and playability. Managing detailed command structures for calling artillery fire could easily prove a detriment to the fun of the game.

[auHobbes37]

I voted yes.

Also I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this at all, but from what I've read and I could be wrong, the Soviets, Chi-coms, KMT and Japanese ability to call real time artillery fire should be very limited when compared to the US.

[Jason Petho]

Another solution may be to incorporate an "accuracy" factor to an artillery strike.

As it is right now, any combat unit may plot artillery and it will be 100% accurate as long as any other unit keeps LOS to that hex.

So, let's add an accuracy factor.

For countries such as the United States there can be a 90% (or something) chance the artillery will bombard the requested hex. If it falls in the 10% "miss target" factor.. the artillery can "drift" up to a hex or two (the way it does now for artillery landing out of LOS)

The better the artillery doctrine, the less likely for a miss.

The poorer the artillery doctrine, the more likely a miss and drift will occur.

This could be a generalized OPTION for existing & settings could be placed within the SCENARIO editor to allow the scenario designer to better reflect the capabilties of the armies in question for new or updated scenarios.

All one would need to do is something like this:

COUNTRY........DOCTRINE.................DRIFT RADIUS
USA......................90.............................1
Romania................40........................... 3
etc
etc

No new units required.

Jason Petho

[scottintacoma]

Could this be added to DCGs? I like the idea. Also maybe increase the drift for fire by map by the Drift Radius?

Scott in tAComa

[Dualnet]

Jason,

I must admit I’m not in favour of different drift values.

I don't think a complicated artillery structure is needed, what is needed is to restrict the ability of every unit to act a spotter for all the artillery. My personnel preference would be to leave everything as is except for limiting support artillery fire to that unit’s chain of command. That way the original small scenarios wouldn't be affected but the very large scenarios would work better.

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: Dualnet

Jason,

I must admit I’m not in favour of different drift values.

I don't think a complicated artillery structure is needed, what is needed is to restrict the ability of every unit to act a spotter for all the artillery. My personnel preference would be to leave everything as is except for limiting support artillery fire to that unit’s chain of command. That way the original small scenarios wouldn't be affected but the very large scenarios would work better.

I agree here. If we keep it simple and try do do it how it is done in PzC + a separate ammo level for artillery. The designer can place artillery in the oob of the unit that he wants fire support for. For example is you want a certain Corps battery only to fire for division x, you can place the battery in division x.

All the info I read in this thread about artillery is very interesting, but I think we need something relatively simple that can be achieved technically by the programmers. Ammo level for artillery itself would already be a very effective way to represent the quality difference between various nations.

Huib

[Jason Petho]

The idea would be an artillery ammo button within the scenario editor that would allow the scenario designer to adjust the various artillery ammo settings.

The designer presses the artillery ammo button:

1. an ARTILLERY dialogue appears:


..............Ammo.........Accuracy......Drift
Allied.........0.................0................0

Axis...........0.................0................0

The values can be defaulted to use the the existing scenario ammo level and accuracy/drift values based on a standard table (a new one that is created based on the various doctrines).

Assuming US vs Romanian (just from using my previous example) with a base scenario ammo level of 80 and 80

..............Ammo..........Accuracy........Drift
Allied.........80.................90................1

Axis...........80.................40................3

2. The scenario designer can then edit the numbers in the dialogue to suit their scenario needs.


..............Ammo..........Accuracy.........Drift
Allied.........80.................95................1

Axis...........50.................60................1

3. Hit OK and then the settings are ready for if the OPTIONAL artillery rule is chosen


In the above example:

The US would have a 80% chance of maintaining supply and a 95% chance that the artillery will hit the assigned hex (if not, it will drift one hex)

The Romanians would have a 50% chance of maintaining supply and a 60% chance that the artillery will hit the assigned hex (if not, it will drift one hex, instead of the default drift of 3 (or whatever value is assigned based on research)).



Hope that is clearer than mud.

Jason Petho

[Borst50]

ok..i see what you are saying...but what if...the allied side, or the axis side is a multi-national composition? Say, like german and italian artillery is the western desert? we have 2 different values for the axis side?

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Borst50

ok..i see what you are saying...but what if...the allied side, or the axis side is a multi-national composition? Say, like german and italian artillery is the western desert? we have 2 different values for the axis side?

It could be generalized, but would be ideal to have settings for each nation that is in the given scenario.

Jason Petho

[Borst50]

I do understand the need for some generalization...and nothing will ever be perfect....however, I was under the impression the point of adding optional rules for artillery was to get away from over generalization...and to focus in the inherent differences in artillery doctrine of the different forces involved? I only point this out as an example. I can this rapidly becoming a nightmare and talking on a life of its own. [:D]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Borst50

I do understand the need for some generalization...and nothing will ever be perfect....however, I was under the impression the point of adding optional rules for artillery was to get away from over generalization...and to focus in the inherent differences in artillery doctrine of the different forces involved? I only point this out as an example. I can this rapidly becoming a nightmare and talking on a life of its own. [:D]

Yes, and it is a valid example. It shouldn't be difficult to tweak the dialogue to incorporate all the nationalities.

Jason Petho

[junk2drive]

Sounds kike a good idea. As long as the variables are hardcoded or user adjusted for use in generated and DCG battles.

[1925frank]

Currently without a LOS, there's a 2-hex drift in any direction.  I can see a 2-hex drift at longer ranges, but at short ranges I have to worry about a drift back on my own units.  I don't see a mortar crew fouling up that badly at short ranges.  On the flip side, even the smallest error would get magnified over greater distances, and it would be at the greater distances that real skill (or lack thereof) would show itself. 

Is it possible to have a progressive drift?  For example, at 2-3 hexes, there might not be any drift, but from 3-6 hexes there might be a potential drift of 1 hex, and from 7-10 hexes a potential drift of 2 hexes, and more of the same along those lines.  I don't know where you'd make the cut-offs.  These are just given as examples.

If you ran with Jason's proposal, where drifts are possible even with a line of sight, I would imagine virtually everyone would be the same at short ranges, but with increased ranges, there might be a far greater variance.  However, the drift with a LOS might not be as great as the drift without a LOS.  A LOS helps to adjust aim.  I'm not sure a LOS would help for the initial salvo.  But I'm no artillery man. 

[1925frank]

The game already reflects inaccuracy over greater ranges.  The effectiveness, as reflected in the attack points, diminishes with distances, which reflects an increasing difficulty of hitting a target within a hex at greater distances.
 
In real life, I guess artillery would not be shooting at a hex with a diameter of 250 meters but at something smaller.  So perhaps the question is how likely is it that artillery would be off by 250 meters or more?  At what distances would artillery be potentially off by 500 meters?

[Huib]

The main problem is not adressed with Jason's proposition, which is that every unit can call in any tube that is in range.

The proposition is interesting, but in my designs I probably would only use the ammo level and not accuracy or drift, certainly not if these latter would also apply to mortars. 250 m drift is just too much IMO.

[1925frank]

Another idea:  If drift isn't the solution, then perhaps separate attack points for artillery with LOS and artillery without LOS.  Artillery with LOS could adjust to be more effective, and then the question would be the skill needed to adjust accurately.  Artillery without LOS would never know if any adjustment was needed as they would be firing blindly.
 
The above doesn't answer the question about spotting.  My concern would be complicating the gameplay. 
 
The game treats artillery and motars the same.  Huib raises the question whether they should work differently.  I'd have to give that more thought.
 
For the current 2-hex potential drift for firing without LOS, I agree that's excessive for short-range bombardments.  It might be accurate for long-range bombardments, but we'd need imput from others with better info than I have.

[dgk196]

Yes, very much so.............

So long as the spotting method reflected the actual capabilities of the various combatants.....

I would not like to see a different version of a one size fits all rule........

Dennis