Mortars and IG's

[wodin]

I'm sure we've all noticed that the main unit to be destroyed\wiped out is either a mortar unit or IG unit or MG platoon. Now where these units so fragile in the War? Or are there issues in how there used in the game that make them way to vulnerable.

Sometimes I think I'd rather see these units integrated into the Coy counter of a battalion rather than be separate units. Guaranteed the first units to be destroyed or disbanded will be Mortar or IG unit and then a vast majority of those taken out during a scenario will consist of these units.

Anyone else think this seems abit odd?

[Lieste]

They do disband a bit more frequently than a line unit, when overrun ~ personally I'd rather heavy weapon groups were *only* absorbed to retain line strength when it is very low... making an overstrength rifle unit by disbanding AAA/AT/IDF seems obtuse...

I'd note this only happens when exposed to heavy fires though, so most of the time mortars and AAA should be fairly immune. IG of the COTA 'Greek army' style should be fairly vulnerable ~ they are direct fire weapons and thus highly visible when in action... but BFTB IG are IDF capable and should be used from behind cover unless used as an extemporary anti-tank screen ~ even then ideally on reverse slopes...

I tend to loose mostly tanks, with a handful of infantry companies ~ and an occasional support element or HQ. Perhaps the issue is one of utilisation.

[wodin]

Well if I don't micro manage them and just give battalion Inf attacks they usually get wiped out first.

[RockinHarry]

AI Mortars, HMG and IG units frequently are taken well foward within, say an infantry battalions footprint and thus get too much forward into the combat lines, when instead they should be placed further back (like normal Arty) in covered (rear slope) terrain, for better security.

That could be dealt with properly by a human player (micro managing, preserving under Regt control)), but the AI will frequently put them in hazards.

I figured it´s doesn´t really matter if a suport unit is either "line support", or just "support". It´s currently taken well forward, when attached to a battalion. I Think these s/b excluded from the normal formation code and other, better rules applied instead.

For my own Estabs I solved that partly, by using more varied unit mixes and attaching/detaching support units to fit a particular battle type. That involves units that have heavy support weapons integrated within coys, or have them entirely stripped from these and kept under divisional command. That´s just an expedient though and does not keep the AI from assigning them back forward into the frontlines and thus in unnecessary hazards again.

[Arjuna]

Harry,

There could be grounds for 'basing' mortars and indirect fire IGs but not for AT and HMG units. Part of the problem with basing mortars is that they have such a short range. Most 81mm mortars have a 2-3 km range and this can leave them exposed if not within the Bn perimeter. The algorythm for selecting the right base location would have to be refined to cater for this. It could be done.

[RockinHarry]

Yes, I´m fully aware that it´s all more complicated and also very much mission, as well as terrain dependent. An attacking unit would deploy heavy support weapons differently from a defending unit and there also must be a differentiation between "direct fire support" and "indirect fire support", independent from the basic "line support" and "support" roles.

In case of ~80mm mortars in defenseive role, they do not need to exploit their full range, when supporting a Bn or Rgt. Reaching out ~1 to 1.5km at max before the "frontline", would be sufficient in most cases. Mortars to support an attack off course need some more flexibility and generally shift fire where the to be supported infantry is attacking.

Same counts for german IGs which are primarily indirect fire support weapons.

Maybe adding some "offset" or "standoff" range of at least 500 to 1000m from the HQ hub would help the indirect fire support weapons kept from the forward lines.

Same for seperated HMG units (the standard ESTABS have few to none though).

[wodin]

Maybe low density units should be alot harder to spot and kill...are we seeing issues due to abstract terrain. Where in real life small mortar unit would be quite hard to spot from 1km out..where in game I'm not sure how easy it is to spot butt it seems abit too easy. Does the amount of eqp\troops make a difference in how easy a unit is to spot?

[dazkaz15]

In my games the poor mortar guys get bombed to oblivion by the enemy arty.

I keep them as separate as I can from my other units, because as soon as there spotted, they draw all the arty fire, and anything else in the same area they are in gets hit as well.

Yes they are nearly always the first to disband in my games, usually from just the punishing arty fire not from enemy direct fire or being overrun.