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


The problem is not the assault rule
11-06-2008, 12:40 PM,
#21
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
I absolutely LOVE this thread (especially given some of the threads we've had to suffer thru recently). I've always thought that all units being able to call in accurate artillery fire within their LOS was one of the weakest, if not weakest, points of an otherwise strong game.

Here's one for all to consider: any possibility of introducing national artillery characteristics? For example, Russian artillery, while numerous and powerful, was never very responsive, in large part due to shortages in communications equipment. Perhaps this could be simulated by the Russian player being allotted fewer observers? Any thoughts?

While personally I like the new assault formula, I can understand the frustrations of those who don't. Depending on how it's done, I think that resolving this issue could go a long way to making the 1.04 assault rules more palatable for some without actually changing them.
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 12:43 PM,
#22
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
If leaders can spot for arty (which seems sensible) then they should spot like units not like transport (which always seemed wrong)

umbro
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 12:44 PM,
#23
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
umbro Wrote:If leaders can spot for arty (which seems sensible) then they should spot like units not like transport (which always seemed wrong)

umbro

Agree with this.
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 01:44 PM,
#24
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
steelrain75 Wrote:Here's one for all to consider: any possibility of introducing national artillery characteristics? For example, Russian artillery, while numerous and powerful, was never very responsive, in large part due to shortages in communications equipment. Perhaps this could be simulated by the Russian player being allotted fewer observers? Any thoughts?

Huib's suggestion about separate artillery ammo levels would help with nationality differences, too. You could simulate a less robust on-call artillery system, such as the Soviets, with a smaller arty ammo level. That way they would get less available arty units on any given turn to simulate a poor communications system (as opposed to a lack of artillery shells).

I am definitely mixed on FOs as separate units, though. It would clutter up the map and be almost impossible to retrofit to existing scenarios. And what kind of stats would they get? I wouldn't want more high morale units defending hexes from assaults. Two or three guys and a radio should have very little organic combat effectiveness.

If leaders are a unit that could call in arty, a scenario maker could always add in some extra leaders with no units attached in the ORG chart. They could simulate FO units, and since they have no attached units in the org, they wouldn't add to combat values, right?
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 02:38 PM,
#25
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
I think we are moving in the right direction here, although I am not convinced of the need for FOs as a separate unit. What we are seeking, I think, is the CAPABILITY to observe, which could be vested in one platoon of a coy as has been suggested, or a leader, or both, or perhaps in some other existing element. That capability would need to reflect at least the organisational and tactical skill of different armies..the Romanian factor, if you will. Whether this is possible within the game engine, I know not.
Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2008, 07:11 PM,
#26
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
Just to add my vote, I think the idea of using the existing platoons with radios is a superb idea. This would make these units more valuable (I suspect they are widely ignored at present once battle kicks off) and add a new dimensioncheers to the game. Great thread.
Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2008, 12:05 AM,
#27
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
K K Rossokolski Wrote:I think we are moving in the right direction here, although I am not convinced of the need for FOs as a separate unit. What we are seeking, I think, is the CAPABILITY to observe, which could be vested in one platoon of a coy as has been suggested, or a leader, or both, or perhaps in some other existing element. That capability would need to reflect at least the organisational and tactical skill of different armies..the Romanian factor, if you will. Whether this is possible within the game engine, I know not.

I believe this suggestion would be the most "doable" and simplier? solution to the "everyone and his brother" can spot for artillery syndrome.

I like the FO concept from both a historical and gaming standpoint. But I agree with several other posters that introducing new FO units would clutter the battlefield and introduce a lot more complexity into the game.

So, can the CS game engine support adding the FO capability to specific units?
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
11-07-2008, 10:08 AM,
#28
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
mwest Wrote: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
:soap:
It seems to me that, if we have arty spotting and control capability vested at sub-unit level...in other words in a hole in the ground, under fire, in the rain or snow...it is a betrayal of common sense if that capability is NOT vested in higher echelon HQs, which are normally better manned, equipped and housed.
If an individual player wishes to expose his HQs in order to exercise that capability, that is surely his own decision. Game design should maximise options rather than exclude them.
Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2008, 10:54 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-07-2008, 11:26 AM by umbro.)
#29
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
It seems that the most straightforward (and perhaps even most valid) simulation would be to allow radio equipped units to spot for arty and add radios to leaders (or give them the ability by default).

This seems to work for West Front armies, but the couple of EF scenarios that I checked seem to give radios only to HQs. This is probably a pretty accurate simulation for the russians, but not the germans. Is this an aberration or is the true for the EF OOBs?

I thought that the first platoon of each company was automatically made a CP? Which, of course it is - as long as you have the Command Control option on! So there you have it. An extension to the command control option that limits spotting to CPs, HQs and leaders. Unfortunately that does not simulate the differences between the western armies and the soviets.

umbro
Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2008, 11:37 AM,
#30
RE: The problem is not the assault rule
K K Rossokolski Wrote:
mwest Wrote: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
:soap:
It seems to me that, if we have arty spotting and control capability vested at sub-unit level...in other words in a hole in the ground, under fire, in the rain or snow...it is a betrayal of common sense if that capability is NOT vested in higher echelon HQs, which are normally better manned, equipped and housed.
If an individual player wishes to expose his HQs in order to exercise that capability, that is surely his own decision. Game design should maximise options rather than exclude them.

I definitely support the idea of giving artillery spotting abilities to the following units only:

1) Units with radios (company CPs)
2) Leaders
3) HQs of any level

I am in agreement with those who say that dedicated FOs will only clutter things up. Huib's idea of separate artillery and direct weapons fires ammunition levels is a good idea as well.

I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that these changes within the realm of achievability for Matrix and would have a significant lasting impact in making the game less, well, gamey.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)