• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


The problem is not the assault rule
11-06-2008, 06:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-06-2008, 06:36 AM by Kool Kat.)
#11
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
umbro Wrote:I would be very circumspect about actual forward observer units. They would add a lot of clutter to the game. Plus, how are they replaced when destroyed, etc. Further, it seems they were attached to field units in their role.

Maybe the solution is not actual forward observer (FO) units, but limiting the ability to call in / plot artillery barrages to regular infantry units? :chin: This would simulate the practice of embedding FOs directly with the assaulting troops. It would also simulate; in a very abstract way, the establishment of forward observation posts, for directing artillery fire onto enemy positions.
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 06:37 AM,
#12
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Right, plus it simulates the forward inf platoon in a bunker (with no FO attached) with a phone line to HQ screaming "this is position X9, the russians are coming, fire the pre-sighted defensive barrage!"

umbro
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 07:14 AM,
#13
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
mwest Wrote:Maybe the solution is not actual forward observer (FO) units, but limiting the ability to call in / plot artillery barrages to regular infantry units? :chin: This would simulate the practice of embedding FOs directly with the assaulting troops. It would also simulate; in a very abstract way, the establishment of forward observation posts, for directing artillery fire onto enemy positions.

The problem there is this thread started as a means to reduce the effectiveness of units bypassed due to the extreme assault rules in calling in arty. If every regular infantry unit (would this include SMG and engineer platoons) is an arty spotter, then you're right back where we started.

My (somewhat pie-in-the-sky) thoughts:

1. I think I like the leader and HQs (probably even infantry company HQs, I guess) calling in arty option. Limits arty to a smaller amount of units overall, and lessens the risks of bypassing. HQs are pretty fragile, too, so they could be reduced fairly quickly. Leaders are tricky, but they are supposed to be force multipliers, right? You could even add in a limited quantity of FOs (1/company or battalion maybe depending on nationality) and retain the leader/HQ spotting as well.

2. If you want to simulate fixed ops with land lines, could you make fixed infantry units (i.e. dug in and immobile) able to call in arty but not unfixed units? Not sure the code would support that, and I can't say that I like fixed units very much.

3. Rather than fixed units, it would be better if just any infantry unit that has not moved from it's starting position could call in arty (to simulate pre-wired comms and pre-targetted barrages), but once they move they lose that ability. But I doubt the game even tracks that sort of thing, so again probably a no-go from the start.

Anyway, not sure I really helped here, but the topic has me interested.

Mike
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 07:20 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-06-2008, 07:20 AM by umbro.)
#14
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Mike Abberton Wrote:The problem there is this thread started as a means to reduce the effectiveness of units bypassed due to the extreme assault rules in calling in arty. If every regular infantry unit (would this include SMG and engineer platoons) is an arty spotter, then you're right back where we started.

I thought that the issue was that any arty could be called upon to support any unit.

If the issue is bypassed elements then you could use whether they are in supply range of an HQ as a determiner. But then how would you deal with cut off units with radios?

It seems that if the any arty/any unit problem were addressed the other issue that you raise would be ameliorated somewhat.

umbro
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 07:27 AM,
#15
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Maybe Rifle platoons (or combat platoons? tanks?) have the ability to direct artillery only in their LOS?

Independant Forward Observers can direct artillery in their LOS and out of their LOS (firing by the map)?

Jason Petho
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 07:43 AM,
#16
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Isn't fire by map available to the arty unit directly. By definition no unit "calls it in" using LOS.

In essence what we are trying to do is reduce the effectiveness of arty that does not have the benefit of communication with an observer who can correct the shell fall. The question then becomes how to model that communication.

umbro
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 07:43 AM,
#17
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Good thread. I'm in favor of an observer system as I stated before in a previous thread by Osiris about Russian artillery. I would also like to see a separate ammo level for artillery that the designer can set. As we all know especially the Germans late in the war were sanctioned on their use of arty shells while their small arms and AT ammo levels were excellent.
I hope these things are programmable one way or another.

Huib
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 08:16 AM,
#18
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Jason Petho Wrote:Artillery values would remain constant throughout their range (as opposed to dropping off drastically as they do now with range).

Divisional or Corps Forward Observers that can call all artillery that are within the division or corps organization? Storch?

Some thoughts for discussion.

I think the arty values remaining constant is more realistic...while shell speed falls off with range, the amount of explosive therein does not. I would like to see more uncertainty and inaccuracy built in...5% of duds for example, and significant inaccuracy with longer range.

The FO discussion needs a lot more airing. The point of the Storch needs very careful consideration, for example the complete air superiority enjoyed by at least the Western Allies later in the war meant that the skies were untenable for such German aircraft as arty spotters. I also believe much more thought is needed on the different capabilities of different armies in all facets of warfare...I think the Romanian analogy has been used, and it is a good one.

And on a related topic, I have always found it odd that a commander has no ability to spot anything other than question marks..personal observation of the battlefield has always been a hallmark of superior military leaders
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 10:48 AM,
#19
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
I think only the units with a radio symbol should be limited to calling in strikes this is the 1st platoon of every company and thus prevents the 2000 FOOs that would needed added to the OOBs...

all leaders should be allowed to call in strikes tho

one has to remember the scale is not squad but platoon and most platoons in many Armies had the ability to call in support from company assets and even regimental levels based upon their mission.

simple solution might be to add an AP cost to calling in strikes and give them a % of failure that "uses" up the artillery units AP and prevents allocation of those firing solutions due to radio miscomms, garbled messages etc...
Faith Divides Us, Death Unites Us.... "We were never to say die or surrender" -- Chard
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 11:18 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-06-2008, 11:01 PM by Kool Kat.)
#20
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Mike Abberton Wrote:1. I think I like the leader and HQs (probably even infantry company HQs, I guess) calling in arty option. Limits arty to a smaller amount of units overall, and lessens the risks of bypassing. HQs are pretty fragile, too, so they could be reduced fairly quickly. Leaders are tricky, but they are supposed to be force multipliers, right? You could even add in a limited quantity of FOs (1/company or battalion maybe depending on nationality) and retain the leader/HQ spotting as well.

I agree that leaders should be able to call in / plot artillery barrages. However, I have mixed feelings on the use of HQs as artillery spotters. As Mike notes in his post, HQs are fragile and I am very uneasy about moving such high value units close enough to the front lines to establish LOS on enemy positions! Eek
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)