Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2001 9:06 am
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
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