Counter-battery fire tested

[Matt]

I have been reading the boards and playing the SP series for a while, but am fairly new to posting. Though I may be looked upon as a heretic, I will throw out another idea in this thread for debate.

Why not bring artillery back to strictly on board as it was in the original SP3. SP3 was perhaps my favorite for this very reason. First of all, it ends most debate about the merits of OBA, counterbattery, etc. Secondly, it provides the player with more options to address his opponent's fire support or defend his own. I don't think that the historians out there should have too much problem with it if there is a scenario with more than one particular unit's normal allotment of fires. Here is why: if an historical scenario says that a particular force had additional support, that support would still have to be within range to support that core maneuver force. In short, players would be free beef up on indirect at their own risk. Or put another way, to create a weakness in their own combat power through unbalancing it for additional indirect. Each situation demands a different balance of forces for optimal effectiveness.

One could argue that the map sizes are too small for this to be done in the same manner as in SP3. Two responses to this argument. First, get over it and make a larger map board. Second, realize that the operational or doctinal inaccuracy that will occur in some cases is insignificant, particularly when balanced against the playability issues mentioned above.

Matt

[Pack Rat]

Matt, you heretic you I couldn't agree more and have been saying here and there I'd like to see the artillery back on board or the option. With out going into the merits or demerits of it all, I too think it would just be plain fun to have it back. Wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to fire on board artillery at off board, if it could reach it and it might if a random position was picked for the off board stuff. At the same time have your on board would be under the threat of tank/infantry overruns, what neat twists it would make.

[murx]

Only problem with OB arty is

tada

the smoke !

I love to send some fast recon to those spots that smoke after I got hammered by some stupid mortars
So smoke sighting should obey LOS rules too... or OB arty has a serious proble with small engagemments.
murx

[Charles2222]

Isn't smoke coming from onboard artillery of a sparser density than that made by smoke grenades?

The reason I ask that, is that to some degree offboard artillery frustrates me, because we're talking about tanks here. A tank in the space of one of these battles could easily outflank a position, and get after the offboard stuff, but as it stands those artillery pieces are immune to this. It frustrates me, sometimes, because I could have the snot beat out of the opponent, but that still doesn't keep me from being bombarded even though he's basically beaten, since he's protected by artificial barriers.

Given that, the smoke grenade question I asked, looms, because I'm thinking if you have what is now offboard artillery, onboard, then you get back to the smoke of the artillery revealing presence of them. If smoke grenades are too dense to fool the opponent into thinking there is artillery in a spot where it is not, then perhaps some phoney fire options can be bought along with mines etc. It would simulate troops setting fire to something in order to make it look as the thinner artillery fire, and in so doing it would eliminate artillery being inaccessible to ground attack, alongside making such smoke not necessarily indicative of artillery.

[Alby]

Hey Poolguy(matt) Is that you????
you finally made it here huh???? about time
(geez i hope its you)
I agree, the arty onboard was a part of sp3 I always liked, especially when my units made it to your arty and started wasting them!!!
Wuhahahhahaha!!!!