Abstraction of Arty FOs

[Chief Rudiger]

From what i've read the role of artillery observation parties was a signficant factor in the success of both attacks and defense. Currently i believe requests for fire support can be made by any unit to a certain level, i.e. a Company can call on any support units that it's Battalion has assigned but cannot directly call on Corp level units unless the call is picked up and repeated up the chain by the various HQs, taking time.

This i feel might contribute to complaints people have about Artillery being too dominant. Rather than have the role of Arty FOs abstracted in this was i was wondering how the game engine would cope with FO parties being discrete units, say a couple of men and a Bren carrier or static/long deployment time OPs. The former would stay in contact with Bty HQ by radio, in the main, and therefore suffer some malus in calling in missions whereas the former would be connected via telephone and, having had time to arrange all defensive fire targets and be in close contact with the attacking infantry's rear HQ, would be able to call missions in quickly and from higher level, but at the price of flexibility and the risk dislocation while the line support OP moves forward and consolidates on the objective.

In essence, this might make artillery less generally responsive but not diminish its power when properly handled. I have not tested this as i'm not clear exactly how FS requests are processed when units are attached to others. For example, if i took a Arty Bn from Divisional Arty and subordinated it to an Inf Bn HQ then i assume that HQ enjoys much better relations with the Arty Bn and that HQ's line Inf Coy can request the full Arty Bn's support as it would the Mor Pl. This would still have to be via the Inf Bn HQ though?

If that Arty Bn were split into a Bn HQ and several Btys, would attaching just the Arty Bn HQ to the Inf Bn (but leaving the loose Btys under Div command) result in an Inf Coy being able to speedily call on the loose Btys, through the Arty Bn HQ?

I ask because this would allow high echelon Arty units to remain deployed while their travelling HQs allow them to be accessed by lower formations. If the FS request ability of all other units was slowed or capped at a certain level, say one or two levels up, then this would make the role of FO parties very significant.

[Count Sessine]

This is a good idea. The manner in which artillery is handled is strange in way. I've always felt that individual airstrikes and individual barrages were out of place is this operational level wargame. Add to this that the way you shift artillery without restrictions makes it very powerful. Personally, I have stopped assigning artillery strikes with the bombard command because I feel it makes things too lopsided.

[FredSanford3]

Or maybe instead of discrete units (or in addition to - depending on the army), have radios (and other comms such as field telephones, etc.) that a unit must possess in order to call in (observe for) artillery. I think they may be thinking of that, because if you look in the estab editor there's some stuff in there referring to radios, although they are not active.

[Arjuna]

FN,

Yes we have the hooks in there to include radios but haven't done so yet.

[Chief Rudiger]

Is there a way to reduce the ability of units to call in FS? I remember reading in some thread that the Axis side can only make request up to a certain level whereas Allied units can go higher, to simulate their superiority in radios and doctrine. Is this moddable / can you explain this further?

While i appreciate you've created an operational level game that favour abstraction i would just like to try out a work-around that would allow the player to more directly control his artillery without having to directly control his artillery, by attaching discrete FS request units to HQ's while all other units, below a certain level, are unable to call in more than mortar FS themselves.

For example, to support a Bn attack with a force of field artillery, exclusivley, i would have to put that FS unit under direct command of the Bn HQ. This would increase that HQ's command load and probably force the Atry unit to reposition when its current position is, IMHO, fine. While i enjoy allowing the AI to decide how to conduct its own attack i do not want it moving prepositionned arty units when there's no real need. Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think this is what the "basing" toggle does?

Basically, what i want to do is somehow connect Arty to units without having them under command so that the Bn AI can effectively use that units itself. This way the Bn AI can better simulate prepared bombardment and defensive fire tasks. Until your engine allows the player to set such things himself, i would think what i suggest would be a work around. This way the player would not be as tempted to take direct command of massive amounts of artillery to stonk tiny enemy units when in RL, as a Div/Corp commander he would not be in that "God Mode" position to intervene.

Hope that made sense.

[TMO]

I think that the answer here (in my opinion) is in spotting. At the moment any unit regardless of its size and composition can spot for artillery (please correct me if I am wrong). This means that a 10-man section without in all probability a radio is just as effective at spotting as a Sherman with a radio. I think that the havock caused by artillery in the game is probably about right but the number of combat-shattered infantry units that can call in arty support is too great.

Regards

Tim

[Arjuna]

Given that one trained FO can effectively call in arty, on what basis or what personel threshold do we assume the loss of such capability?

[TMO]

I agree that one FO can call in arty, so even if an afv unit is down to its last vehicle (assuming this vehicle has a radio) this should be allowed. I think the problem lies with company-sized infantry units being reduced to a few men but still being able to spot. As to the cut off point for losing the ability to spot, this would be pure guesswork. If you read Peter White's memoir With the Jocks, Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2001, you get a sense of just how precarious radio contact was within a company and how often the forward platoon relied on runners.
 
Regards
 
Tim 

[Chief Rudiger]

Could the FO vehicle not be a discrete vehicle in each force? There are already such vehicles in the German Estab. I don't think they have any effect in game though? If these vehicles had a "FS Radio" as part of their armament/equipment then this would provide the capability. I'm not sure how vehicle losses are aportioned from enemy fire but it would seem an open topped radio scout car would be one of the first to go, certainly with all its aerials drawing attention to it.



Still, is there a way, using the present FS request code, to allocate FS to a unit without an Arty unit being under direct command? Like subordinating a Bty HQ to an Inf Bn whilst having that Bty's gun teams as a discrete unit, detached and given a player defend order in a nice safe corner of the map, but still in some way taking orders from the Bty HQ, quickly, who in turn can be asked for FS, quickly, by the Bn HQ?

[SwampYankee68]

From what I have read, the number of FOs assigned to line units would vary, with more being assigned by brigade or division to attacking forces. Not all line infantry companies companies had FOs for artillery, but they could draw from FOs from their own mortar teams to call their fire. Probably just stating the obvious here...I'd agree that with the position that the game does make it too easy to call in and adjust artillery fire just about anywhere at anytime. I do like the idea of individual team-sized units that would be necessary for a player to use battalion or brigade artillery. Those units would have to have a LOS to the intended target. Mortars on the other hand could be called by any line company.

[Arjuna]

Separate units for FOs, while realistic, is not going to happen because adding the number of units required would dramatically slow down the game.

[SwampYankee68]

Hmm, - as someone else suggested, it might be best then for a player not to take manual control of artillery then - leave that in the AI's hands to best simulate the complexity of commanders or FOS calling in targets to the Battalion or Brigade FSOs and them relaying to to the FDCs, then to the guns, etc.

[Chief Rudiger]

It would be nice if there was a middle ground where the player had some control over the employment of his artillery. Perhaps my complaint is simply about how attached Arty units tend to reposition unneccesarily rather than the FS request code. Certainly however, i feel the current "band box multiple artillery units and smite from on high" is too tempting an option. Perhaps there being a command delay when multiple units are given such an order would make it less open to abuse?

[SwampYankee68]

Could the repositioning be simulating "shoot and scooot" to avoid counter-battery fire?

[Chief Rudiger]

No, the movement i describe happens before the the attached Arty has even began firing. Arty units usually move to an AI decided supporting posn when I give the Inf Bn HQ an attack order, like the attached Mortar Pl does. This behaviour is obvious in the Hofen Ho-Down scenario where the German deployment zone is bisected by a river whose (best wheeled) crossing place is held by the enemy. Attaching any of the motorised Divisional Arty units to a Bn or Bde HQ results in these Arty units, more often than not, trying to use this road to cross the river to a new deployment zone, through the enemy. The battery positions currently occupied are fine, so shouldn't be changed, IMO. Yet, without an "artillery basing" check box option on the attack parameters tab it seems impossible to link an Arty Bn to a formation without that unit being redeployed, needlessly.

The only workaround i can see is to attach the Arty unit(s) to say the Bde/Regt HQ and give them a defend in-situ order. By my understanding of the FS code this will allow Coy/Bn to request FS off the Bde HQ who will be able to request FS off the Arty unit faster than if that Arty unit were attached to the Div.

However, by operating the Bde/Regt seperate from their Bns this surely prevents using the "arty direct support only" option as the attached Arty unit would only fire in support of the Bde HQ, and not the Bde's detached Bns. Without having the Arty unit in direct support only mode it will continue to fire in support of anyone, not just the Bde you want to have dedicated FS!

I know some players don't like this "let the AI run everything" approach but i think it is what this game is all about. The inability to give Bn/Bde dedicated AI controlled FS without those Arty units displacing unneccesarily is a annoying limitation of the engine. If there is a work around i'm not seeing it.

[SwampYankee68]

Very good post. Agreed that is an issue, and I like your suggestion for a fix.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Separate units for FOs, while realistic, is not going to happen because adding the number of units required would dramatically slow down the game.

Have a single soldier (within a Company) carry a walkie-talkie (or one of those radio backpacks [which were used by both - German and American units -, at least]) instead of a gun, and - instead of assigning this forward observer to the Arty Btn or an infantry-gun Coy (where - in reality - they would then have ordered the FO to move to or near the line Coy and liaise with its commissioned officers) - include the FO in the line Coy's estab entry. Arty batallions/regiments employed several FOs, so you could research the number of FOs and distribute them among the infantry (line) units.

Then, in the game, once these units would lose the piece of equipment (radio) or the man (who can operate or repair it), they'd lose the ability to call in arty support, and they'd then have to fall back on old school methods (messengers who gotta use motorbikes, bicycles, or who have to hoof it), and dance with a bigger order delay (which should be used when messengers/runners are involved, anyways).

That means units without radio equipment would ...

• 1) not be able to report targets without delay
• 2) deliver less accurate intel, if the sighted enemy unit keeps moving
• 3) only be able to report targets if the reporting unit is not cut off or seperated from the main force by say large rivers/lakes (as messengers wouldn't get through)
• 4) be able to use field telephones, but ONLY if they're entrenched in uncontested areas or on deadlock fronts (as setting up wires for fixed telephone lines will take some time).

That'd be the most feasible and logical solution, imho.

[Arjuna]

Not bad GoodGuy. Some good suggestions there.

Would need some interface for indicating whether or not a particular unit had an FO capability. Would also need to modify casualty algorythms to change the interface once the FO became a casualty and to set a flag within the unit so that it could be managed by the AI. The algorythm for managing on-call support would need to be amended. We would then have to prepare ourselves for the flood of subsequent requests for repairing the lost capability and for simulating prep bombardments for attacks where no assault unit has an FO. It just goes on and on, doesn't it. [;)]

[Fred98]

Another solution:

When an arty unit fires, the game places a safety barrier around the target. If friendly forces move within this box the arty unit stopps firing to avoid friendly fire.

Arrange it so that there us a limit to the no of arty units that can target within any one box.

Arty unit 1 targets a point

Arty unit 2 targets any point in that safety box including the original target.

etc etc etc

Arty unit "n' attempts to target any point in that box but is stopped because the threshhold has been reached.

In the options screen. the prompts a suggested nimber but the player would insert "n" before the scenario begins.

-

[Rebel Yell]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Another solution:

When an arty unit fires, the game places a safety barrier around the target. If friendly forces move within this box the arty unit stopps firing to avoid friendly fire.

Not only should accidental friendly fire be possible, danger close fire missions need to be possible, so no need for this.