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

 
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 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
[Poll]

Artillery Spotting


Yes
  76% (59)
No
  23% (18)


Total Votes : 77
(last vote on : 10/27/2009 7:52:25 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Artillery Spotting - 1/13/2009 2:11:25 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		A quick poll to judge the interest in a revised, OPTIONAL method of artillery and it's usage.

Would you be in favour of seeing a new optional rule that would alter the way artillery is called upon?

Yes or No.

Possibly, but not definitely, a variation along these lines:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2003198

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion
Post #: 1
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/14/2009 12:51:59 AM   
Warhorse


Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline 		An emphatic YES!! I like this idea, too easy for arty call right now...

Mike

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 2
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/17/2009 11:10:48 AM   
dadamaga

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline 		yes :)

(in reply to Warhorse)
Post #: 3
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/17/2009 12:40:41 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		yes, the way that John Tiller implemented it to Panzer Campaigns

_____________________________


(in reply to dadamaga)
Post #: 4
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/18/2009 11:12:56 AM   
Ron Belcher


Posts: 250
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Clovis, CA USA
Status: offline 		Heya Jason!

I toss a big YES! vote in too...

& it is too e-z for an arty call ..(I have to agree!). However, with Arty Spot (we "shouldn't" see those
missing shots! Make each 1 count as they damn well should .. w/ a Spotter, of course!

< Message edited by tactician93612 -- 1/18/2009 11:15:18 AM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 5
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 2:32:07 AM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline 		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!

< Message edited by timshin42 -- 1/19/2009 2:35:09 AM >

_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 6
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 10:06:24 AM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline 		Spoken like a "red leg" that knows his history of artillery.
And, shows an appreciation of the game in both scale and playability!

RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 7
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 11:22:10 AM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		The current generic system gives all armies an UBER US army fire control and observation capability. Using organizational structure, researchers and scenario/oob designers could use leaders and forward observers in varying numbers and located differently on the command chain to better simulate this tactical factor of warfare.

It would be an optional rule, and I'd be interested to see what researchers and scenario designers willing to contribute their expertise could come up with.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 8
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 2:31:45 PM   
Jason Petho


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

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


Me too!

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 9
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 3:17:52 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline
quote:

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!


QFT

I echo the wisdom of this "cautionary" approach.

Also, is the current artillery system so "broken" that it requires such radical proposed changes OR...

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

Maybe err on the more "simple" fix side?

Let's be real careful here guys....


< Message edited by mwest -- 1/19/2009 3:28:04 PM >

_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 10
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 3:27:46 PM   
Jason Petho


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

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



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 11
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 3:30:32 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

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




Thanks for the clarification Jason. I did not know that fact.

So.. my vote would be NO.


_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 12
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 3:50:59 PM   
scottintacoma

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline 		Given what Jason just said, I would make a change. Standalone leaders should be able to spot for artillery.

Scott in tAComa


(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 13
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/19/2009 5:50:37 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		I am for one a Big YES....Why not have pre determined FFE Markers, Officers or command vehicles, FO Aircraft to adjust, FO specific Units.

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to scottintacoma)
Post #: 14
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/20/2009 3:30:10 AM   
cw58

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Hanford, CA, US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

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

Scott in tAComa




I was going to try giving a small attack value (0/1) to a leader to see if he could then spot for artillery. But when I did the test I found that even 'unarmed' leaders could spot the enemy and plot artillery strikes. I tried again with 'stock' leaders (German, levels 1 & 2) and the same thing happened, while unarmed transports still only see a "?" in the hex. It used to be the way Jason said, but it seems to have changed. Can anyone else confirm this?

And to stay on topic, I like the idea of changing the spotting rules.

< Message edited by cw58 -- 1/20/2009 3:41:45 AM >

(in reply to scottintacoma)
Post #: 15
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/20/2009 1:44:21 PM   
Dualnet

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		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!

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 16
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/20/2009 7:06:35 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline 		Sorry Dualnet, change for change sake without doing the research and getting it close to right would really be a dramatic waste?
A game that has lasted for all these years does not need something done quickly. Scope and scale should be the main considerations.
I think most of us can give examples of mistakes made when we rushed things?
I am most weary of advertising schemes that call for a quick response or I will lose out on "millions" of dollars.

RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Dualnet)
Post #: 17
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/20/2009 8:26:32 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline
quote:

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!


I would argue that a "simplistic" game mechanic / rule does not necesarily make it "bad."

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.

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

< Message edited by mwest -- 1/20/2009 9:40:27 PM >

_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to Dualnet)
Post #: 18
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/20/2009 9:07:59 PM   
Jason Petho


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

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.


Yes, clearly and will be done.

quote:

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


This is not high priority, heck it isn't even a priority at the moment as I have far too much on my plate right now. It is proposal and poll based on numerous requests that I have had and seen.

There is lots of room for discussion and research. Time to dust off a few books from one's library and see what doctrines were, effectiveness of varying guns, ammunition, FO's, radio networks, etc. Use the board for discussing ideas & thoughts, that's what they are here for.

The more information the better.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 19
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 11:34:00 AM   
Dualnet

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		Again I couldn't disagree more. This game is very good, but everyone I know; (about 6 people) who play it, have always questiond the Artillery rules, particularly when playing the larger PBEM games. We always play with the fire by map switched off and have had a house rule that limits artillery to firing in support of assigned formations.

The simple thing is to make it an optional rule if you don’t like it don’t play it, but don’t stop the rest of us.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 20
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 4:56:19 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dualnet

The simple thing is to make it an optional rule if you don’t like it don’t play it, but don’t stop the rest of us.



I have to agree here, if you don't like it don't use it...How hard is it to create a FO or add the attribute....not too much but again don't want to drag this up and dust it off but, the individual can't mod or create on the fly without submitting a form to the powers that be.....I have resigned myself to this fact, to me it is a joke. I have already modded the battalion oob for the US up to division for the campaign. I scarpped that green a -c junk and redid the OOB by the Orginization with dates in and out of theater. So I chose what units I wanted to include, except for the fact that I cannot create any new ones...se la vis

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to Dualnet)
Post #: 21
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 5:02:31 PM   
Jason Petho


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

ORIGINAL: barker
se la vis


C'est la vie.

Jason Petho



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to marcbarker)
Post #: 22
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 6:20:39 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		I agree that spotters should be used...i would very much like to see this addition added as an option. However, the gulf between historical accuaracy, vs. game playability is going to a paramount issue here. And while PBEM and stand alone senarios would greatly benefit from this addition, I remain circumspect about the outcome vis a vie DCG's. I realize that DCG's are not a very high priority, rather the emphasis seems to be placed on PBEM and designer senarios.

So to that end i request some thought should be given to how this will affect DCG's as a whole. Prior to this, such has not been the case.

In fact, I would also request that the pre-1.03 artillery rules be in affect as standard, with the present rules as an option. I still have issue with the fact that a 3 sp US 60mm mortar on opportunity fire could destroy 2 Pz VIB's, disrupt the remainder of the platoon, and force a retreat. So I would ask this issue be addressed--artillery fire vs. tanks.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 23
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 7:03:32 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		your still having problems Borst? I ran into that the other day...2 plattons of V's comming into visibility range, Hear the pop saw the flash and 3 V's gone from the first platoon at 5 hexes, second platoon goes up and blam 3 more V's out of action, I then moved an infantry unit to where the flsh was and low and behold 1 lousy 57mm AT gun, the other hex had a 60mm mortar.....so much for that one eh?

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 24
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 8:21:40 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dualnet

Again I couldn't disagree more. This game is very good, but everyone I know; (about 6 people) who play it, have always questiond the Artillery rules,

<snip>

The simple thing is to make it an optional rule if you don’t like it don’t play it, but don’t stop the rest of us.



The simple things are not always the best things, especially if based on what 6 people did not like and not what is most historically accurate, and playable, within the scope of the game. I won't put what you and six friends like above the integrity of the game.

Quite simply don't make change for change sake. Make changes for the right reasons and optional if that is the right way to go.
Though, I believe if the change is for the good then don't make it an option (it will effect all scenarios prior to it's implementation - but, that has not stopped Matrix before).

Thanks for your, and the six other's, input.

RR


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Dualnet)
Post #: 25
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 8:43:11 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		barker,
60mm mortars had los and dropped their rounds right down the turret hatches...LoL

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 26
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 10:50:08 PM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline 		Mr Roadrunner:

Can you please explain to me how this NONSENSE about having a bunch of jeeps running around with FO's ever got started?

Are there actually maneuver folk out there who don't realize that EVERY U.S. maneuver unit company Commander, be it Infantry, Tank, or Cavalry, has an assigned Field Artillery LT, or if not, an FA NCO, or if not , an FA PFC, all trained in the fine art of adjusting observed fires, right next to him at all times?

Are there maneuver folk unaware that not all fires need to be adjusted? That predicted fire (equivalent to "indirect fire by the map"), with proper registration and meteorogic data, was quite routine, very effective and was developed by the US Field Artillery PRIOR to WWII? And used extensively throughout that war!

Are there maneuver folk out there who don't understand that , with properly trained gun crews and fire direction center crews, it is quite normal for a towed field artillery unit to delivery fire to any place on the battlefield within its range, in a matter of MINUTES? And with self propelled artillery even faster? (Yes Virginia, it did take longer with "Pigs" -- 8" towed units!).

So if you plan to have FO's running around in jeeps on the game screen, the same logic dictates that you must have a distinct jeep, tank, or foot leader for every company sized unit, running around cluttering up the board.

EVERY US COMBAT MANUEVER COMPANY BY DEFINITION HAS ITS OWN FO ASSIGNED, except when it is in reserve. Artillery is never kept in reserve, so now you will have all the reserve maneuver units distinct FO graphical symbols also running about the board at all times, creating an enormous graphicall mess on the board (screen)!

The Soviets, on the other hand, did not even bother with "observed fires". ALL artillery fires were preplanned, and massed. Up to 35 percent of all Soviet artillery was centralized in Artillery Divisions and Corps, controlled at Army, Front and even STAVKA level! Not believing in observed fires, they had no need for FOs! In the rare case where fire adjustment was attempted, the Soviet BATTERY commander climbed up on a high spot of land and ORDERED (not requested, there was no real Batallion Fire Direction Center) fires from his own battery!

THE SUREST WAY TO MAKE THE ARTILLERY SIMULATION "LUDICROUS" AS WELL AS "REDICULOUS", NOT TO MENTION "SUPERFICIAL" AND JUST PLAIN "SILLY", is to base your model on some formula of varying numbers of graphical FO symols by national doctrine (ie: Americans get 3 FO units per Regiment. Brits get 4 per Division, Soviets get 1 per Corps, Japanese get them ocassionally on a random throw of the dice!)

Any change not based on the ability of Artillery units to mass fires (can that be done in JTCS? I hope so!) AND the assignment of unit missions to artillery unit ( attachments, direct support, general support. Keep it simple and forget about reinforcing or general support reinforcing; that is getting too detailed for maneuver folk!) is a step backwards, not forwards!

I have provided my Field Artillery credentials to Jason! I will be delighted to discuss the FA subject in detail off-forum with anyone who cares enough to discuss "sensible improvemnts to field artillery in gaming'!

In the meantime, please think carefully about the entire scope and scale of the "problem" before making pronouncements or proposals to introduce a very complex "improvemnt" or "change" in a simplistic or illogical or just plain unrealistic way.




_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 27
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 11:12:30 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		timshin,
Your expertise is welcome, I'm sure. Right now Russian and US artillery have the same capabilities. Using chain of command, would not having most Russain arty separated from the maneuver elements help?

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 28
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/21/2009 11:32:33 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		My hope is simply this, bearing in mind that Jason says this is quite on the back burner:

Come up with an improvement that does not add too much complexity for the players, or require too much effort for the programmers. Get input from players and researchers to make it as good as possible.

My suggestions may well be simplistic, but I start from not adding new unit capabilities, but using the chain or command to restrict which units can spot for which arty. There is alot that oob designers can do with this alone.

Just incase it aint perfect, and to maintain old scenarios that may not accomodate it, make it optional.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 29
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 1:17:01 AM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline 		KEY POINTS:

1. SOVIETS

-- High emphasis on preplanned fires-- on a massive scale.
-- very strong capability to mass fires -- absolutely essential.
-- rolling barrages ---- very desirable.
-- forget about FOs and observed fire.

2. US

-- actually rather satisfactory as a base model.
-- desirable-- TOT capability (convergence of fires on a single target from multiple units). (Just as multiple unit maneuver assaults multiply assault factor).
--very desirable--artillery capabilities based upon ARTY unit mission assignments (attachment, direct support, general support).
--very desirable--effective predicted fires (by the map).

3. BRITISH

--application/recognitiopn of superior skill of oberved fires (more reliable observed fires due to higher ranked/more experienced FOOs)
--Commomonwealth Redlegs, please help out here!

4. ITALIAN
--need someone knowledgable about doctrine and tactics (not just weapons systems).

5. JAPANESE
-- really don't know.






_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Artillery Spotting Page: [1] 2 3 4   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

4.609