Counter-Battery Fire (CBF)

[rob89]

At the moment (if I understand correctly) CBF is only possible if in the bombed hex there is a artillery/HQ unit (and guns with appropriate range).

IMHO, this is a bit unrealistic.

There are scenarios with full (one-counter) division with organic artillery that could be bombed without reaction by enemy atillery units, and this leads to tactical artillery-driven situation and stalemate ... ; furthermore, this leads to preferring OOBs with independent sub-units of artillery in the scenario-design.

What do you think about

thanks in advance

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rob89

At the moment (if I understand correctly) CBF is only possible if in the bombed hex there is a artillery/HQ unit (and guns with appropriate range).

IMHO, this is a bit unrealistic.

There are scenarios with full (one-counter) division with organic artillery that could be bombed without reaction by enemy atillery units, and this leads to tactical artillery-driven situation and stalemate ... ; furthermore, this leads to preferring OOBs with independent sub-units of artillery in the scenario-design.

What do you think about

What's bombing them, if the divisions are single units? Must be Corps or higher artillery. So, the other side's Corps or higher artillery can counterbattery too. Or the designer could put the divisional artillery external to the division units. Up to the designer.

[rob89]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

What's bombing them, if the divisions are single units? Must be Corps or higher artillery. So, the other side's Corps or higher artillery can counterbattery too.

That's the issue !

If the enemy Corps Artillery (from rear position) bombs front-line divisions, their own Corps Artillery (in rear position too) can't counter-battery, because they are not directly under-fire ...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rob89

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

What's bombing them, if the divisions are single units? Must be Corps or higher artillery. So, the other side's Corps or higher artillery can counterbattery too.

That's the issue !

If the enemy Corps Artillery (from rear position) bombs front-line divisions, their own Corps Artillery (in rear position too) can't counter-battery, because they are not directly under-fire ...

That assumes the Corps Artillery has the range to reach the bombarding artillery, and the player really wants them to provide counterbattery at that range. That would require a pretty complex UI option that may not be worth the effort.

[thomasharvey]

Another option is to use the double icon as an artillery icon. In my opinion, the single unit division unit is at a disadvantage to a Division unit with a separate artillery unit. The single division unit has less firepower and no artillery qualities compared to the two unit division.

See my World at War scenarios and the explanation in the briefing under "general information" which is as follows:

10. All non Armored, Panzer, Armored Infantry, PGD and Marine units that have towed artillery equipment in the unit have a dual icon assigned. This allows the unit's artillery to have the same artillery operations as does a dedicated artillery unit with nothing but artillery equipment in the unit. However, on occasion they will refuse to attack as infantry. In that situation click on the unit display and reduce the range to zero. Then the unit will attack like an infantry unit but will still have the firepower of the artillery equipment in the unit. These same dual infantry/artillery units will be unable to act as defensive reserves to enter a hex in response to enemy attack. They will fire their artillery equipment in defense instead if dug in or set on reserve status. Without the dual icon the artillery equipment in the infantry unit would not nave artillery operations and therefore be at a big disadvantage. Finally, the dual icon units will act as artillery units and not take he target hex in the combat phase. They will have to take the hex on a subsequent phase. It is recommended non duel icon units be mixed in the attack to take the target hex in the combat phase.

There are pros and cons to this approach but I prefer a separate divisional artillery unit with a division. With a single unit division, I prefer the double icon. The scale of the map is also a consideration when looking at bombardment ranges.

[Zovs]

I must not be understanding this correctly, could you post a pic of the double icon? As far as I know each unit can only have one icon when you create them. Are you talking about using the Inf-Art icon?

[thomasharvey]

If you open the World at War 1941-1945 scenario you can see many units with the double icon. To make one you go into the editor, put the cursor just to the left of the first icon showing. Right click and the icon display shows up and then click on the second icon of your choice with a left click. If you make a mistake and want to make a different one use the same procedure.

If you want to remove it and have only the first icon, put the cursor over the second icon, right click and bring up the icon display and then hit the escape key to remove it.

Many different combinations can be made. Some good combos have yet to be discovered I would suspect.

[Zovs]

Thank you Thomas Harvey! Very interesting and very neat!

[rob89]

ORIGINAL: thomasharvey

In my opinion, the single unit division unit is at a disadvantage to a Division unit with a separate artillery unit. The single division unit has less firepower and no artillery qualities compared to the two unit division.

I completely agree with you.

But in many scenarios (also due to scale problems) unfortunately the divisions are represented as single units and could be very time-expensive to modify very complex OOBs. This is the reason for which I hoped it was possible to have artillery always react with counter-battery fire, independently from the unit-icon.

ORIGINAL: thomasharvey

Another option is to use the double icon as an artillery icon.

The double-icon can be an interesting solution
But is PO capable of handling that, using units as artillery or infantry in different cases?

[larryfulkerson]

The double-icon can be an interesting solution
But is PO capable of handling that, using units as artillery or infantry in different cases?

I don't think the PO is capable of deciding which configuration to use. I could be wrong. Maybe we should do some tests to see what it does.

[thomasharvey]

The double icon allows the firing range of the unit to be changed like an artillery unit. When that is done the unit can act like an artillery unit and provide counter battery fire. It must be changed back manually so the unit can attack as a ground unit instead of barrage fire only on the next turn. I do not think a PO can do that.

[thomasharvey]

picture shows normal double icon division range setting to allow ground combat.

[thomasharvey]

picture shows changed range from zero to 2. This allows artillery functions but not ground attacks by the non artillery equipment in the unit. The entire unit can defend and can also be dug in.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: thomasharvey

picture shows changed range from zero to 2.

Not familiar with this TOAW feature, but it looks very interesting. Some questions . . .

How was the visual switch made from range 0 to range 2?

What would an opponent see when observing this unit? Discreet divisional units for infantry and artillery, or just one big unit?

How far can this multiple icon system be employed? As an example, could you build a division and make icons for 2 infantry regiments, an artillery regiment and an armored recon battalion?

Regards

[larryfulkerson]

How was the visual switch made from range 0 to range 2?

here you go Steve:

[thomasharvey]

What would an opponent see when observing this unit? Discreet divisional units for infantry and artillery, or just one big unit?

How far can this multiple icon system be employed? As an example, could you build a division and make icons for 2 infantry regiments, an artillery regiment and an armored recon battalion?

Regards



The opponent would only be able to observe the first or primary icon. They would not see anything different than an ordinary infantry division.

There is a limit of two icons per unit. If you make separate units for the division rather than just one, you could have a double icon for each one.

[rhinobones]

Tom/Larry

Appreciate the response. Good for the designers to know.

Regards, RhinoBones

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: thomasharvey
How far can this multiple icon system be employed? As an example, could you build a division and make icons for 2 infantry regiments, an artillery regiment and an armored recon battalion?

I should point out that there are definitely (undocumented) limits to dual-icon capabilities; for instance, AFAIK you cannot create a naval unit which can enter shallow and deep water (ie, torpedo boats), regardless of which icons you use.

This might be an exceptional case, dunno, but don't assume that you can make use of the capabilities of whatever icons you choose.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I should point out that there are definitely (undocumented) limits to dual-icon capabilities; for instance, AFAIK you cannot create a naval unit which can enter shallow and deep water (ie, torpedo boats), regardless of which icons you use.

This might be an exceptional case, dunno, but don't assume that you can make use of the capabilities of whatever icons you choose.

Yes, this is one of those examples where icons need to be able to be more flexible. MTB were used by everyone almost everywhere, from shallow rivers to the deep blue sea.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey you guys, as part of my explorations around the WiTPTracker program I found a way to do a CVS dump of various topics about the status of your game and as part of the output was a file called Ship_Classes.csv and I converted it to an xls file so that we could use it in a spreadsheet and I've discovered that it's got a boat-load of data about each ship from both sides all nations included, and it's only about 405KB big. I'm going to attach it to the next post below so you guys can take a look around and see if it's helpful in any way. Sounds like I ought to post this bad boy in the MODS section too.