Artillery Spotting

[Jason Petho]

A quick poll to judge the interest in a revised, OPTIONAL method of artillery and it's usage.

Would you be in favour of seeing a new optional rule that would alter the way artillery is called upon?

Yes or No.

Possibly, but not definitely, a variation along these lines:

tm.asp?m=2003198

Jason Petho

[Warhorse]

An emphatic YES!! I like this idea, too easy for arty call right now...

Mike

[dadamaga]

yes

[Arkady]

yes, the way that John Tiller implemented it to Panzer Campaigns

[Ron Belcher]

Heya Jason! [8D]

I toss a big YES! vote in too... [;)]

& it is too e-z for an arty call ..(I have to agree!). However, with Arty Spot (we "shouldn't" see those
missing shots! Make each 1 count as they damn well should .. w/ a Spotter, of course!

[timshin42]

Before you make such a radical change, even on the optional level, it would behoove the Designer to read up on and learn some details about American, and Soviet, Field Artillery doctrines, which are totally different. Many of the statements made in the correspondence concerning this subject are inaccurate regarding the 4 basic field artillery missions or the 7 inherent responsibilities of each of them; one of which specifically deals with the Artillery Battallon responsibilities for FO support of the maneuver units in each of the DIRECT SUPPORT (DS), REINFORCING (R), GENERAL SUPPORT (GS), or GENERAL SUPPORT REINFORCING (GSR) missions (US Doctrine).

Soviet Artillery Battery Commanders in fact do not "request fire" as an American 2LT/FO would do, they "order fire" and perform the FO function themselves ('on the hill"). As the Soviet doctrine minimizes on-call fires, and emphasizes preplanned fire with complex fire support coordination but relatively unsophisticated fire direction, it will be extremely difficult to come up with a rule which accurately represents each of the doctrines.

I don't have your solution: I am pointing out the difficulty of making a meaningful change without further basic research. I am knowledgable about US Field Artillery doctrine developed during WWII and am familiar with the basic Soviet doctrine ("RAGS and DAGS"). But cannot comment on French, Commonwealth, German or Italian WWII field artillery doctrines.

Any change which does not address ALL of these doctines would be at best superficial. As I am certain that the US doctrine has NOT been accurately addressed, such a change would be sophomoric!

Call me a naysayer! Yes I am. The present system sufficiently models field artillery fires in the game in a generic way. Make a change if you will; but make it an educated, meaningful one, or don't bother.

By the way, the change described in the correspondence bears no resemblance to the way FA fires are handled by the HPS Panzer Campaigns engine, either with or without the optional "indirect fire by the map " rule!

[MrRoadrunner]

Spoken like a "red leg" that knows his history of artillery.
And, shows an appreciation of the game in both scale and playability! [&o]

RR

[FM WarB]

The current generic system gives all armies an UBER US army fire control and observation capability. Using organizational structure, researchers and scenario/oob designers could use leaders and forward observers in varying numbers and located differently on the command chain to better simulate this tactical factor of warfare.

It would be an optional rule, and I'd be interested to see what researchers and scenario designers willing to contribute their expertise could come up with.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: FM WarB
I'd be interested to see what researchers and scenario designers willing to contribute their expertise could come up with.

Me too!

Jason Petho

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: timshin42

Before you make such a radical change, even on the optional level, it would behoove the Designer to read up on and learn some details about American, and Soviet, Field Artillery doctrines, which are totally different. Many of the statements made in the correspondence concerning this subject are inaccurate regarding the 4 basic field artillery missions or the 7 inherent responsibilities of each of them; one of which specifically deals with the Artillery Battallon responsibilities for FO support of the maneuver units in each of the DIRECT SUPPORT (DS), REINFORCING (R), GENERAL SUPPORT (GS), or GENERAL SUPPORT REINFORCING (GSR) missions (US Doctrine).

Soviet Artillery Battery Commanders in fact do not "request fire" as an American 2LT/FO would do, they "order fire" and perform the FO function themselves ('on the hill"). As the Soviet doctrine minimizes on-call fires, and emphasizes preplanned fire with complex fire support coordination but relatively unsophisticated fire direction, it will be extremely difficult to come up with a rule which accurately represents each of the doctrines.

I don't have your solution: I am pointing out the difficulty of making a meaningful change without further basic research. I am knowledgable about US Field Artillery doctrine developed during WWII and am familiar with the basic Soviet doctrine ("RAGS and DAGS"). But cannot comment on French, Commonwealth, German or Italian WWII field artillery doctrines.

Any change which does not address ALL of these doctines would be at best superficial. As I am certain that the US doctrine has NOT been accurately addressed, such a change would be sophomoric!

Call me a naysayer! Yes I am. The present system sufficiently models field artillery fires in the game in a generic way. Make a change if you will; but make it an educated, meaningful one, or don't bother.

By the way, the change described in the correspondence bears no resemblance to the way FA fires are handled by the HPS Panzer Campaigns engine, either with or without the optional "indirect fire by the map " rule!

QFT

I echo the wisdom of this "cautionary" approach.

Also, is the current artillery system so "broken" that it requires such radical proposed changes OR...

would JTCS players be better served with just eliminating transport units being able to spot and call in artillery fire?

Maybe err on the more "simple" fix side?

Let's be real careful here guys....

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mwest

would JTCS players be better served with just eliminating transport units being able to spot and call in artillery fire?

Under the present system trucks, unarmoured halftracks, motorcycles and stand alone leaders cannot spot for artillery fire.

Jason Petho

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: mwest

would JTCS players be better served with just eliminating transport units being able to spot and call in artillery fire?

Under the present system trucks, unarmoured halftracks, motorcycles and stand alone leaders cannot spot for artillery fire.

Jason Petho

Thanks for the clarification Jason. I did not know that fact.

So.. my vote would be NO.

[scottintacoma]

Given what Jason just said, I would make a change. Standalone leaders should be able to spot for artillery.

Scott in tAComa

[marcbarker]

I am for one a Big YES....Why not have pre determined FFE Markers, Officers or command vehicles, FO Aircraft to adjust, FO specific Units.

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Given what Jason just said, I would make a change. Standalone leaders should be able to spot for artillery.

Scott in tAComa

I was going to try giving a small attack value (0/1) to a leader to see if he could then spot for artillery. But when I did the test I found that even 'unarmed' leaders could spot the enemy and plot artillery strikes. [&:] I tried again with 'stock' leaders (German, levels 1 & 2) and the same thing happened, while unarmed transports still only see a "?" in the hex. It used to be the way Jason said, but it seems to have changed. Can anyone else confirm this?

And to stay on topic, I like the idea of changing the spotting rules. [:)]

[Dualnet]

I couldn't disagree with you more; your attitude seems to be "we can't get it perfect so let’s do nothing". That's what the option button is for, to allow you not to use it.

At the moment the way the Artillery is modelled in the game is far too simplistic. It may be fine for a small game, but once the scenario becomes larger the ability to be able to swing an entire army’s artillery, from one side of the battle field to the other and then back again, is clearly ridiculous.

To limit spotting to chain of command plus FO would go a long way to redressing this, even if every type of artillery mission isn't modelled and who knows after a while further amendments might address other types of artillery missions.

This is urgently needed change!

[MrRoadrunner]

Sorry Dualnet, change for change sake without doing the research and getting it close to right would really be a dramatic waste?
A game that has lasted for all these years does not need something done quickly. Scope and scale should be the main considerations.
I think most of us can give examples of mistakes made when we rushed things?
I am most weary of advertising schemes that call for a quick response or I will lose out on "millions" of dollars.

RR

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Dualnet

I couldn't disagree with you more; your attitude seems to be "we can't get it perfect so let’s do nothing". That's what the option button is for, to allow you not to use it.

At the moment the way the Artillery is modelled in the game is far too simplistic. It may be fine for a small game, but once the scenario becomes larger the ability to be able to swing an entire army’s artillery, from one side of the battle field to the other and then back again, is clearly ridiculous.

To limit spotting to chain of command plus FO would go a long way to redressing this, even if every type of artillery mission isn't modelled and who knows after a while further amendments might address other types of artillery missions.

This is urgently needed change!

I would argue that a "simplistic" game mechanic / rule does not necesarily make it "bad."

I would also argue that an artillery change is not "urgently needed," but any proposed artillery changes should be done in a thoughtful, deliberate manner AFTER approporiate historical research and in game testing.

Also, I have yet to read any postings on how these proposed artillery changes would impact game play.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mwest
I would also argue that an artillery change is not "urgently needed," but any proposed artillery changes should be done in a thoughtful, deliberate manner AFTER approporiate historical research and in game testing.

Yes, clearly and will be done.

ORIGINAL: mwest
Also, I have yet to read any postings on proposed artillery changes and how these changes would impact on game play.

This is not high priority, heck it isn't even a priority at the moment as I have far too much on my plate right now. It is proposal and poll based on numerous requests that I have had and seen.

There is lots of room for discussion and research. Time to dust off a few books from one's library and see what doctrines were, effectiveness of varying guns, ammunition, FO's, radio networks, etc. Use the board for discussing ideas & thoughts, that's what they are here for.

The more information the better.

Jason Petho

[Dualnet]

Again I couldn't disagree more. This game is very good, but everyone I know; (about 6 people) who play it, have always questiond the Artillery rules, particularly when playing the larger PBEM games. We always play with the fire by map switched off and have had a house rule that limits artillery to firing in support of assigned formations.

The simple thing is to make it an optional rule if you don’t like it don’t play it, but don’t stop the rest of us.