Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Artillery spotting change idea

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Artillery spotting change idea Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 9:26:08 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		Hoping change may be in the wind, I'll throw out my evolving two cents worth for consideration. First off, make it an optional rule, please.

Spotting ability should be based on chain of command. (I have seen this in other games.) This would make interunit boundaries important.

Spotting ability for units and leaders should be as follows:
platoons or other individual combat units (not trucks or horses, etc): any indirect fire unit on same command level or below.
Leaders: any indirect fire unit on same command level ore one level above.

This would allow for creation of FO units and give leaders extra importance. OOB designers could model the different armies' artillery usage fairly accurately.
Post #: 1
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 9:34:47 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB
First off, make it an optional rule, please.


Lesson learned.

Jason Petho



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 2
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 9:48:11 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

platoons or other individual combat units (not trucks or horses, etc): any indirect fire unit on same command level or below.
Leaders: any indirect fire unit on same command level ore one level above.


Based on how the organizations are structured in the game, I am having a difficult time understanding what you mean.

Presently (for example) an American armoured infantry battalion looks like this:

quote:

43 06 45 12 B1012279 6 2nd Armored Infantry Battalion 43 (T/O 7-25)
43 06 45 12 P10305 2nd Armored Infantry Battalion HQ
43 06 45 12 P10406 Major
43 06 45 12 C1002260 Armored Headquarters Company 43 (Armor)(T/O 7-25)
43 06 45 12 C1002261 D Armored Infantry Rifle Company 43 (Armored)(T/O 7-27)
43 06 45 12 C1002261 E Armored Infantry Rifle Company 43 (Armored)(T/O 7-27)
43 06 45 12 C1002261 F Armored Infantry Rifle Company 43 (Armored)(T/O 7-27)


The HQ company looking like this:

quote:

43 06 45 12 C1002260 6 Armoured Headquarters Company 43 (Armour)(T/O 7-25)
43 06 45 12 P10814 Reconnaissance Platoon
43 06 45 12 P10849 M21 81mm Mortar Halftracks
43 06 45 12 P10263 Machinegun Section
43 06 45 12 P10271 3rd Bazooka Teams
43 06 45 12 P10755 M3A3 (MG)
43 06 45 12 P10755 M3A3 (MG)
43 06 45 12 P10754 M3A3 (MG)



The Rifle companies looking like this:

quote:

43 06 45 12 C1002261 6 Armoured Infantry Rifle Company 43 (Armoured)(T/O 7-27)[M3A3 (MG)]
43 06 45 12 P10406 Lt.
43 06 45 12 P10814 1st Platoon
43 06 45 12 P10814 2nd Platoon
43 06 45 12 P10814 3rd Platoon
43 06 45 12 P10263 Machinegun Section
43 06 45 12 P10102 Mortar Section
43 06 45 12 P10754 M3A3 (MG)
43 06 45 12 P10754 M3A3 (MG)
43 06 45 12 P10754 M3A3 (MG)
43 06 45 12 P10753 M3A3 (MG)
43 06 45 12 P10754 M3A3 (MG)


So, based on what you are saying, this rifle platoon

43 06 45 12 P10814 1st Platoon can call for support from 43 06 45 12 P10102 Mortar Section

but it would require the leader (43 06 45 12 P10406 Lt. ) to call support from the HQ company 81 mm Mortar (43 06 45 12 P10849 M21 81mm Mortar Halftracks)?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 3
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 9:59:33 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		Yes, that is correct. Thats the idea.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 4
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:02:17 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

Yes, that is correct. Thats the idea.


So, that means that no-one can call for the 105mm battery in the Artillery Battalion attached to Division unless there is a FO attached from that battalion? Or?

Jason Petho



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 5
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:02:30 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		I should add, that with Command control option, the company HQ platoon should also be able to perform this function, and a leader would not be needed.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 6
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:03:29 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

I should add, that with Command control option, the company HQ platoon should also be able to perform this function, and a leader would not be needed.


I would agree with that, yes.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 7
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:08:04 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		105 bns were usually attached at Regimental combat team level, so Bn commanders could call them. Also, place a halftrack or armored car platoon at Regiment level, and it can spot for any arty in that regiment.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 8
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:10:24 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

105 bns were usually attached at Regimental combat team level, so Bn commanders could call them. Also, place a halftrack or armored car platoon at Regiment level, and it can spot for any arty in that regiment.


Yes, I understand that, but I am trying to wrap my head around it keeping in mind the current organization structure.

In order to function as you're suggesting (without redoing the order of battles...again), there would have to be some form of FO added for the larger artillery units (artillery battalions, regiments, divisions).

Unless I am missing something.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 9
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:14:51 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		The idea is to have oob flexibility to represent different arty doctrines...For example, add a Divarty leader...He could spot for and create Time on Target,,,which all armies can do, now. put a scout platoon in an arty battery, that is their FO.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 10
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:16:12 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		Yes,,,FOs should be part of arty bns, at varying levels,

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 11
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:18:10 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		A US Regimental Commander could spot for all arty within his division, as I propose it.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 12
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:25:42 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

The idea is to have oob flexibility to represent different arty doctrines...For example, add a Divarty leader...He could spot for and create Time on Target,,,which all armies can do, now. put a scout platoon in an arty battery, that is their FO.


If one is relying on FO from the artillery units, then doctrine should be able to be represented by the amount of FO's available. For example, an American artillery battalion may have 2 FO's units (be them scout jeeps, armoured cars, whatever) while a Romanian artillery battalion may have none but instead having a FO or two available at the Regimental (infantry type?) level only.

So, for an American Infantry division, there would be 8 FO available from the artillery battalions (based on the typical artillery brigade of 4 battalions within an infantry division) where in a Romanian Infantry Division there would be 2 FO available (assuming one arty regiment per division - I don't have the oobs here at work)

Yes, No?

Jason Petho



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 13
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:30:23 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		yes, Yes!...that's the idea.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 14
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:41:13 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		Lets consider the good ole I&R platoon of the American infantry regiment. Place it directly under the regiment, and it could call for fire from the 105 bn attached to the regiment.
Differing placement of individual platoons or leaders within their heirarchies could simulate different arty capabilities.
The Russians dont have much arty in thier corps or divisions. the leaders and FOs of their arty units would be needed.

In any case, starting the ball rolling from a who can spot for whom, instead of trying to create a new unit, seems to me to be the most efficient way to go.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 15
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 10:42:17 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

yes, Yes!...that's the idea.


Fascinating indeed. I like it!

OK

A few issues right off the top of my head with this:

1. In most cases, this will require additional units, meaning that this will not function with existing scenarios.
1a. This means scenarios will have to be updated. Of course, new scenarios can incorporate them
1b. Different versions of scenarios for those that like to play with the options ON&OFF? Those that don't like FO will have a bunch of "fodder" around the battlefield.

2. Can you still indirect fire by the map? [ Logically you should be able to ]

3. How many actions points does it cost the FO to call artillery? I presume this would depend on the nationallity (2 x American FO) can call for all the guns of their battalion during the course of a turn, assuming the guns have ammo). An American FO to call artillery = 33 AP? (assuming 3 batteries at 50AP to fire each shot?)

4. I would imagine they should be difficult to kill (especially for those countries with only a few, as the Romanians) otherwise you're stuck with batteries of artillery that just look pretty.

Jason Petho




_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 16
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/12/2009 11:25:39 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		1) obiously why it must be an optional rule. I like doing oobs and am willing to help.

2) yes indirect fire by the map is presumed to be part of the idea.

3) I hadn't considered actionpoints for call for fire....interesting.

4) Leaders are tough to kill, and there's always fire by the map.

Jason,
Thanks for considering these ideas
Warren

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 17
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/13/2009 12:22:03 AM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho
3. How many actions points does it cost the FO to call artillery? I presume this would depend on the nationallity (2 x American FO) can call for all the guns of their battalion during the course of a turn, assuming the guns have ammo). An American FO to call artillery = 33 AP? (assuming 3 batteries at 50AP to fire each shot?)Jason Petho


After further consideration (and dinner), I do not think actionpoint cost for call for fire is necessary. The different combinations of leaders/FOs within the organizations would be simulation enough. The added complication for players and programmers to impliment it would not be worth it.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 18
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/13/2009 1:50:45 AM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline 		By making it optional, older scenarios will play fine I imagine. Scen designers need to put more info in their briefings anyway, i.e. which options to use.

I wouldn't use FOs to call fire, just be the LOS unit. Don't know how that would be possible in the coding though. Or any other suggestion either...

If the above is possible, I wouldn't charge FOs or others AP to call fire, just for movement and self defense.

In some games I've played, FOs have binoculars for better sighting distance, small size is hard for the enemy to spot, have basic weapons for self defense.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 19
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/13/2009 6:12:18 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		If I am reading this thread correctly, all mortar and artillery units will need a FO to spot and call in artillery fire. I am then assuming the said FO, is the only unit capable of calling in artillery fire and must have a direct line of sight to the target. (All this under optional rules of course)

I am thinking, in addition to the already stated problems that may arise, I can think of several more. To wit:

1) In night engagements, or where visibility is severely limited, the FO's would be useless, and being the only unit to call in artillery fire, said fire would be limited to units in adjacent hexes to the FO's...making artillery worthless for that battle. So unless ALL platoons have the ability to call in artillery support, we will end up with a bunch of artillery units on the map with nothing to do, or looking pretty as someone else put it.

2) The problem of actually spotting enemy FO's. As a rule they were usually 2 or 3 man teams sent out with radio equpiment to call in fire. Much like sniper units. The whole idea behind them is concealment. I am thinking one would have to make them like small AT units, invisible to enemy, unless someone actually stumbles on them, in which case, they should be treated like leaders alone in a hex.

3) Supply. Because of their inherent detatched status from the parent HQ. They should be immune to the effects of supply. The should have a very minimal defense, but really no attack value, due to their small size and lack of heavier weapons. (A couple of rifles, or pistols, maybe a couple grenades). They should also be possibly be immune to morale checks, rather. automatically retreating when they come under fire. (if they arent destroyed by said fire outright!)

Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. I like the basic idea and hope it will be incorporated with the next update.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 20
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/13/2009 7:55:54 AM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		The main issue I see with many of the ideas above (and btw, I agree with the general thrust) seem to require the addition of new, non-combat units.

One could limit which units are capable of spotting for arty to leaders, HQs, command platoons, etc. dependent upon doctrine.

Furthermore doctrinal differences could be modeled by using the organisation tree differently for each doctrine. A flexible doctrine allows any unit under the same level as the organisational head of this artillery unit to act as a spotter (i.e. any unit under one level higher than the arty), whereas a centralised doctrine allows only units under the level of the arty unit to spot for it and any command level unit higher in this organisation.

umbro

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 21
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/13/2009 10:18:54 AM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: umbro

The main issue I see with many of the ideas above (and btw, I agree with the general thrust) seem to require the addition of new, non-combat units.

One could limit which units are capable of spotting for arty to leaders, HQs, command platoons, etc. dependent upon doctrine.


umbro



I think that would be the best way to go. Leaders and command platoons at least. HQ's are to valuable to place in LOS.
IMO a spotting system is desperately needed. In each design so far I have had to improvise to get the effect of artillery somewhat realistic (not overly effective that is).

Huib

(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 22
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/14/2009 8:14:40 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

If I am reading this thread correctly, all mortar and artillery units will need a FO to spot and call in artillery fire. I am then assuming the said FO, is the only unit capable of calling in artillery fire and must have a direct line of sight to the target. (All this under optional rules of course)


3) Supply. Because of their inherent detatched status from the parent HQ. They should be immune to the effects of supply. The should have a very minimal defense, but really no attack value, due to their small size and lack of heavier weapons. (A couple of rifles, or pistols, maybe a couple grenades). They should also be possibly be immune to morale checks, rather. automatically retreating when they come under fire. (if they arent destroyed by said fire outright!)

Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. I like the basic idea and hope it will be incorporated with the next update.


Platoon units can spot for arty/mortars within their own command heirarchy.

3) FOs from arty batteries should attached to the units they support. An arty battery in a Regimental Combat Team should have its FO units attached at Regimental command level, thus should be in supply.

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 23
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/14/2009 8:19:04 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		Huib,
While HQs should not be realistically used to spot for arty as their role is supply, I don't know if they can be programmed not to see. Enough leaders, company hq plts (playing with command control) and FO units should be available.
Warren

(And I wont be the one doing the programming...:-)

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 24
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/14/2009 8:35:12 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50
2) The problem of actually spotting enemy FO's. As a rule they were usually 2 or 3 man teams sent out with radio equpiment to call in fire. Much like sniper units. The whole idea behind them is concealment. I am thinking one would have to make them like small AT units, invisible to enemy, unless someone actually stumbles on them, in which case, they should be treated like leaders alone in a hex.


This has got me thinking, which is dangerous, some say. I dont want to see a new Class of units. Prehaps a dismounted leader, transported by jeep or halftrack, etc would fill the bill.

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 25
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/14/2009 11:31:40 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		I think you may be right, a dismounted leader with a jeep transport would probably work in this context. I could actually live with that, but that leader should not have any real command function...but that may be problematic as to coding that within the framework of the game. Still it would an interesting addition.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 26
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/15/2009 12:34:05 AM   
TAIL GUNNER

 

Posts: 1152
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline 		But what about all these cool vehicles that spotted for artillery?




SPW 250/5


Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 27
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/15/2009 6:01:17 AM   
TAIL GUNNER

 

Posts: 1152
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline 		There was even a Panther arty spotter (with a dummy gun)!

If there's a way to get these vehicles in the game and properly used for their intended role, I'm all for it.




PZ.BEOB.WG.V AUSF.D


Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)
Post #: 28
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/15/2009 9:48:05 AM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		I should think so, and their allied equivalents. Some vicious tactical battles were fought for certain pieces of terrain because they were actual or suspected locations for FOs.

(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)
Post #: 29
RE: Artillery spotting change idea - 1/19/2009 6:50:04 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		If such an optional change is introduced, I would like to see recon units considered. If they had better arty spotting (using LOS) capability than other units it would simulate their special role. They would become more than op fire fodder.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Artillery spotting change idea Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.797