Matrix Games Forums

One suggestion was, I believe, that to the extent there is drift, the drift would remain within the 250 hex -- that the artillery wouldn't be off by 500 (one hex) to 750 meters (two meters).  The suggestion was that the current 2-hex drift rule is unrealistic. 
 
With smoke, both direct and indirect fire are reduced in efficacy because they are firing with impaired visibility.  What if indirect fire suffered from the same reduced efficacy instead of drift?
 
I don't know enough to rule out drift.  To the extent there is drift, I think it sould be minimal at closer ranges and grow with greater ranges.
 
Regarding the spotting, I'm liking more the idea of a separate ammo number for artillery (or indirect fire generally).  From what I understand, some countries were better at spotting than others.  The ammo number already supposedly reflects the ability to communicate info accurately and timely to the artillery.  If this number is low, it would reflect poor spotting or an inability to communicate spotting accurately or timely. 

Hi Guys

A great idea long over due!!!

An excellent article for artillery doctrine tutorial at http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artyfrench.shtml

I would strongly suggest reading this before making any changes to the spotting rule. But to summarize artillery doctrine of the the major combatants


German Artillery
German Artillery Doctrine: It's mine-you can't use it.

Russian Artillery
Russian Artillery Doctrine: Sorry, we can't do that...


British Artillery
British Artillery Doctrine: To them that have much will be given.

United States Artillery
American Artillery Doctrine: Anything you want, you've got it...


Japanese Artillery: Not much, not often

Why not just keep the changes simple.

German US, British Armies: 1x Forward Observer (FO) Unit per company
Russian: 1 x FO unit per battalion. This would reflect the Russian practice of pre-planned fire  
Japanese: 1x FO per battalion: Artillery was not used by the IJA on a large scale until Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Mortars were heavily used.

Rene

ORIGINAL: osiris

Why not just keep the changes simple.

German US, British Armies: 1x Forward Observer (FO) Unit per company
Russian: 1 x FO unit per battalion. This would reflect the Russian practice of pre-planned fire  
Japanese: 1x FO per battalion: Artillery was not used by the IJA on a large scale until Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Mortars were heavily used.

Rene

And, I have to ask again... why make changes at all? If it aint broke... [&:]

Here is my previous post on this subject:

Gents:

There has been a lot of discussion that the current artillery spotting rules must be changed from a "realism" standpoint. However; I have read little to nothing on how any of these proposed changes would impact game play.

My view on artillery is that the current rules are adequate and work well within the JTCS game mechanics. Artillery; when one side is blessed with it, works as intended. Combat units can spot and call in artillery fire that will land in the turn following the request. Some artillery; like the Russian BM-13 Katyusha rocket launcher, takes an additional turn to reload its rocket tubes. Pretty straight forward.

IMO; as a JTCS player - not scenario designer, I like this abstracted artillery treatment. I don't want to micro manage my artillery forces. I want to focus on how artillery will support my troop advances - not that my FO is out of position and whoops, that combat unit can't call in fire from a particular artillery battery because it is not in the same chain of command.

Sorry; but for me, it is enough that I need to try to keep my combat units within support range of their assigned battalion HQs for supply purposes.

I am against adding an additional level of complexity (yes, all artillery change support postings advocate an increased level of complexity - adding additional units like FOs. Changing the chain of command to call in artillery strikes, etc.), in the name of "realism". Also any purposed artillery changes that I have read would fundamentally change how artillery spotting works and would have a major and unknown impact on game play. I don't see any of these proposed changes as incremental ones.

Finally; as a JTCS player, I have never played a PBeM game in which myself or any of my opponents have cited the current artillery spotting rules as being so flawed as to negatively impact on game play or flow. This has been my experience and to be frank, I have never considered "revamping" the artillery spotting rules. IMO, it should not have a higher priority versus other JTCS rule issues such as extreme assault, variable visibility, and existence of weird units like the "magical" bombers and "bathtub" navy. (not to open that discussion in this thread!)

Again, I believe the impact of these proposed artillery spotting rules to game play and balance need further discussion.

The problem is that it is broke! Particularly for large games when vast amounts of artillery can fire on a target on one side of the map, switch immediately to the other side of the map and then back again

HI Mwest, Dualnet,Jason
 
I do agree with you Mwest that artillery is abstracted. Thinking it through lets keep it even more simple
 
Assume the FO will be with the commander in the command Platoon because its the company commander thats going to call the artillery down and order the FO to signal their buddies to shoot here and there.
 
Allow only the command platoon in the company to call artillery and problem is solved. Like this you still maintain a level of realism while addressing Dualnets concerns as well and you dont have to mess around with a FO unit given the scale of this game in the first place. I think Dualnet the concern you have about switching artillery in large games from one side to the other could be addressed by including a more realistic delay of artillery. Say you plot artillery on turn 4 it will arrive either on turn 4 or 5 or 6 or you could cancel the strike entirely but once requested unless the strike is called off the artillery will fall! I think this would address the concern you have with out going into more complex mechanics.
 
Osiris
 

ORIGINAL: Dualnet

The problem is that it is broke! Particularly for large games when vast amounts of artillery can fire on a target on one side of the map, switch immediately to the other side of the map and then back again

Richard:

Why not employ your own artillery rules of engagement (ROEs) ? [&:]

I have my own ROEs in regards to the use of transport units and halftracks as do most of my PBeM opponents. These "gentlemen agreements" work well. There is no reason it could not be (and has been) extended to the employment of artillery; as long as both players agree to follow them.

Do we really need more optional rules? [&:] We already have two flavors of assault.

Perhaps we should think of optional rules simply as ROEs that are enforced by the game system.

Thus, perhaps optional enhanced artillery would limit arty spotting to command units (including command platoons - btw does that pass to second platoon when the command platoon is out of action?) and artillery only to fire on targets spotted by command elements in their own organisation, but without the players having to track the details.

umbro

ORIGINAL: umbro

Perhaps we should think of optional rules simply as ROEs that are enforced by the game system.

In other words... make it an optional rule! [:'(]

Looks like any proposed artillery rule changes will be out just about the time CS scenario designers finish tweaking all the 350 stock + hundreds of DYO scenarios to accomodate Extreme Assault. Give them another project! [X(]

If artillery were not changed at all, I wouldn't care.  At the same time, there are certain aspects about artillery that I think leave room for improvement.  I don't like the two-hex drift at short range.  Regarding spotting, I've played other games where spotting is a hassle and an exercise in frustration.  I remember being really pleased that spotting was so easy in this game.  Despite the ease of spotting, it's not a sure thing.  If your units are eliminated or retreat or lose their line of sight for one reason or another, you'll have drift.

Hello,

Well, as usual, the replies are 'all over the place'...... good, shows there's a diversity of thought...

The only 'line of thought' that I can't agree with is ..... 'if it ain't broke'.....

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong.... I think that the explanations as regard the why are valid.....

What isn't valid is why it should not be addressed...... if 'tanks', or 'infantry' or 'guns', all had the same attributes, regardless of nationality or type, there would be major 'uproar', in addition to a 'completely' unrealistic game....

The 'devil is in the details'..... ignore the 'details' and there will be the devil to pay.....

Dennis

ORIGINAL: dgk196

The only 'line of thought' that I can't agree with is ..... 'if it ain't broke'.....

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong.... I think that the explanations as regard the why are valid.....

Sarcasm aside, what about trying to not let someone change something that should not be changed if it "ruins" the game, as a game, because the feature added was not based on the principles of artillery spotting (for realism) and is only based on what a bunch of players think it sould be?
It happens. [:)]

RR

Thank you Mr. Roadrunner, for attempting to inject a bit of sanity into what has been, by and large, an exercise in insanity! With the few exceptions of those who have quite aptly explained the capabilities and limitations of the artillery of different nations, much of what has been said is "maneuver element" superficia. Attempting to more accurately model field Artillery in this game by adjusting drift factors or regulating the allotment of forward observers looks to me like emtying the water from a hole in the beach while the tide is coming in.

Field artillery is fundamentally different from the maneuver elements, and I'm not referring to weapons systems, ammunition or forward observers. Anyone who thinks that artillery can't shoot at a target without an observer with LOS to a target, or thinks that most artillery pieces can't shift fires from one side of the battlefield to another quite efficiently, is just plain unaware of the functions of the Fire Support Coordination Center at Division, Corps or Army level, and the interfaces between all sources intelligence, FA operations, aerial operations, ballistic meteorology, to name but a few, which take place there. Nor are they aware of some of the more basic FA functions such as registration fires, artllery survey, and sound and flash ranging capabilities. You can no more micro-model these functions than you can micro-model the functions of a maneuver element battalion, regiment, brigade, or division staff. Nor are they aware that "observed fires" are only a fraction of the artilleryman's bag of tricksl

All Armiy's artilleries had such functions; they are the essence of the Field Artillery package. the only differences being the varying efficiencies of the various FA functions in the different Armies.

In short, superficially attempting to "improve" the artillery model by toying with trivial factors which only represent a small portion of the entire FA package, very likely results in even further distortion of artillery play in this game. Is the current artillery model perfect? Hell no! It is not even "very good". Is it acceptable? It is acceptable to this Redleg former battery XO, battery commander, battalion fire direction officer, and FA advanced course and command and staff course instructor. So it ought to be acceptable to any maneuver element guys whose only exposure to field artillery has been "observed fires and FOs".

The only meaningful changes to the game artillery model would come about through a coordinated effort between the programmer (Tiller), the Game Manager (Petho) and a small task team willing to thoroughly familiarize itself with the artillery tactics and techniques of the various nations and come up with a short grocery list of basics, such as American "time-on-target" and Soviet "moving barrages" to name but two, for the programmer and manager to implement. UNTIL THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, PLEASE LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!

Like Mr. Roadrunner, I love this game! Please don't screw it up with myopic, inaccurate or cosmetic changes.

ORIGINAL: timshin42


In short, superficially attempting to "improve" the artillery model by toying with trivial factors which only represent a small portion of the entire FA package, very likely results in even further distortion of artillery play in this game.

Is the current artillery model perfect? Hell no! It is not even "very good". Is it acceptable?

It is acceptable to this Redleg former battery XO, battery commander, battalion fire direction officer, and FA advanced course and command and staff course instructor. So it ought to be acceptable to any maneuver element guys whose only exposure to field artillery has been "observed fires and FOs".

The only meaningful changes to the game artillery model would come about through a coordinated effort between the programmer (Tiller), the Game Manager (Petho) and a small task team willing to thoroughly familiarize itself with the artillery tactics and techniques of the various nations and come up with a short grocery list of basics, such as American "time-on-target" and Soviet "moving barrages" to name but two, for the programmer and manager to implement.

UNTIL THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, PLEASE LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!

Like Mr. Roadrunner, I love this game! Please don't screw it up with myopic, inaccurate or cosmetic changes.

And THANK YOU Mr. Haines for your service to our country and for interjecting your real life experience as a battery commander into this thread! [&o]

It is refreshing to have logic and real experience to counter the "have to change for change sake" mentality of some JTCS players. [8D]

If tanks were as i have requested many,many times be painted Pink then we wouldnt need Artillery Spotting would we?[:D]

I personally have never thought Artillery was a problem in the game. Sure it's certainly not even close to perfect. But does it really need to be ?. Can't the scenario designer allow for the amount of artillery and types for both sides ?. With that tool and simply choosing how much and of what type, The scenario designer can pretty much decide how much the artillery will effect or benefit one side or the other. I'm not up for any changes to the current rules regarding artillery, With the exception of possibly implementing what Jason suggested as far as a drift factor option. 

PINK TANKS?????!!!!!??? Ohhhh, I just have to see that! How about fuchia? Or maybe a nice "Miami Vice" 80's soft pastel colour?

ORIGINAL: Borst50

PINK TANKS?????!!!!!??? Ohhhh, I just have to see that! How about fuchia? Or maybe a nice "Miami Vice" 80's soft pastel colour?

Why not,im not Colourist at all,maybe a nice pastel Peach for the Kubelwagens?

Absolutely!! And the halftracks should be a brilliant electric puce! [:D]

Borst50, if you want to see a pink tank, go to Campaign Series Support and look in the Patch Issues thread.  There's a photo of a pink tank there.  You'll also get to see the new brothel unit Jason developed.

heheheh...i remember the brothel unit...still waiting to see it in the campaign. Even cartoon soldiers need releif! [:D]