Matrix Games Forums

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

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!

ORIGINAL: mwest

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

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

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

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

Scott in tAComa

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!

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.

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