Phantom Artillery

[alaric99x]

This pertains to the France '40 campaign scenario.

I read somewhere that the design intent of the fixed units on the eastern map edge was to simulate units on the road which arrive iin the battle area later, as they are released. There is a lot of artillery there and I've been using it to reduce the Dutch and Belgian units within range of it. It occurs to me now that I really shouldn't be using the fixed artillery because it's actually down the road somewhere moving up. I'm only playing the AI, but if it were against a human opponent, then I guess I would have an unfair advantage using this artillery.

Any thoughts on this?

[Volcano Man]

I think the main reason that the units were fixed on the map edge is not to simulate anything, regardless of what the notes might say, but rather it is to make the arrival of these units more managable, from a design point of view. It can be extremely complicated and confusing to work with tons of reinforcement units, especially since you need to have the unit on the map to issue AI orders during the scenario design process. Now whether these units should have been made into reinforcements once all that was finished is another story.

I would say that since these units are supposed to be reinforcements, then yes it might be gamey to use the fixed artillery there to soften up enemy positions, before the artillery units are released. Otherwise these units would and should be considered normal reinforcements which would prevent you from using them like this since they would not be located on the map.

But it all depends on who you talk to really. Some play literally, if the unit is there then use it... or if exploit X is there then take it. I do not play like that.

[alaric99x]

Well, if you're playing against another person, then this is something that would have to be agreed upon before the game begins. I wonder how everybody else resolved this, indeed, if the question even came up before. Also, this isn't the only game and scenario in which this question would have to be resolved.

[timshin42]

:whis: Don't know about "gamey" or not, but:

There are lots of command and control reasons why an artillery unit may be unable or not authorized to move, but still be able to fire. If it is in range, fire it.

:soap:Even if not authorized to move, field artillery is never given a reserve mission. If the fires are needed, and the battery is within range, it should be fired. The American Army Field Artillery during WWII had artillery command, control, and communication methods to bring about concentrated fires from all batteries on the battlefield that were within range, even if the batteries were not authorized to move. I would think German FA would have been at least as sophisticated. Don't know about Soviets.

If the game designers had intended that fixed FA units not be fireable, then they should have programmed them that way. Bottom line, firing fixed FA units is quite realistic. Not an issue IMHO.

What is unrealistic, at least as far as American FA units are concerned, is to play WITHOUT indirect fire by the map. That just doesn't make any sense, from a US artilleryman's perspective.

This from an old, retired MOS 71193, vintage '60s through '80s.:cool:

[alaric99x]

Hi Harry, I'm retired Army too, 21+ years, Ordnance Corps. What you're saying is correct, but the issue here is a little different. The fixed artillery units, and other units, in this and some other scenarios shouldn't really be on the map. The designers wanted to represent reenforcements coming on the map, but, instead of bringing them on as reenforcements, they placed them on the map at the start and decided to release them from fixed status at a later time. So even though they are present on the map, and in range to fire on enemy units, they are, in reality, really on the road farther back to be released from fixed status at the time when they would normally be reaching the map edge. What you're talking about is units that are in some reserve position waiting to advance. Of course, those units would be firing support on all enemy units in range that they have grid coordinates for.

[Volcano Man]

Well, if you're playing against another person, then this is something that would have to be agreed upon before the game begins. I wonder how everybody else resolved this, indeed, if the question even came up before. Also, this isn't the only game and scenario in which this question would have to be resolved.

Ok, so it looks like you answered your own question, or that you already had your mind made up?

Yes, essentially this is something that is best left up to the two players to agree upon. Of course, I don't see how the allied player would agree upon anything other than not using them, or the German player agreeing on anything less than using them. I take the common sense approach that if these units were made reinforcement arrivals like they should be then they wouldn't be on the map to begin with. Whether or not this is the correct way to evaluate it is something else, but it is how I evaluate issues like this in PzC. It really just depends on whether you take the literal or common sense approach to it. Both are correct, and both are incorrect and could be justified either way. I would just say to leave it to an agreement between the two players.

[alaric99x]

Yeah, you're correct, I answered my own question and I had the answer before I asked it. I just wanted too see if anybody else had any thoughts on this, or if the issue had even come up before.

And, yes, I agree that I would not use these units if the designers used the method of releasing them from fixed status to represent appearance in the battle area. We can all see them, but they're not really there. I won't even use them against the AI, even though I know he'll never tell that I did.

[Volcano Man]

Right, to clarify, I don't think that either approach is right or wrong, it is just one of those grey areas that leaves room to question what is "gamey" and what is not. I was only offering my personal opinion on the matter.

I just think that the units were left on the map to make the design of the campaign easier and more managable and this side effect was probably overlooked. Folloiwing that, the justification for the units being on the map was made after the fact, sort of validating a decision made for another reason. I am guilty of doing that myself. :)

[alaric99x]

Whatever the reason may be for their being on the map, once we know that they really shouldn't be there, then to use them will be "gamey."

[Glenn Saunders]

Whatever the reason may be for their being on the map, once we know that they really shouldn't be there, then to use them will be "gamey."

If your using the Default Optional Rules, there shouldn't really be any problem because the vast majority of those arty units would not have valid spotters on the map.

If you've changed the optional rules - and you are welcome to do so, that is why they are there - and you've

TURNED OFF ARTY Setup
and
TURNED ON Indirect Fire by Map

... and discovered a side effect of this - then that is a different issue. So it is reasonable for the parties to discuss how they agree to handle it. But I wouldn't request a change to stop fixed units from firing or fixed arty from firing. In fact I could see more problems being caused by this.

Glenn