Air and Artillery by the Map Optional Rule for D85

[timshin42]

Real world: "on January 15, 1945, in the VIII CORPS area of operations, the 1st BN of the 358th INF, 90th INF DIV makes a forced march into 6th ARM DIV sector to attack Niederwampach...... and gains town after artillery barrage by 14 (thats fourteen :eek1:) artillery battalions". U.S. Army in WWII,Special Studies, Chronology 1941 - 1945.

Now the fire support coordination of the fires of 14 FA batallions on a single target or group of targets requires a complex artillery chain of command and communications capability, which demonstrably existed in 1945. presumably among FA battalions of the 6th ARM DIVARTY, the 90th INF DIVARTY, VIII CORPS ARTY and other DIVARTYs and Artillery with the Corps. (there are 3 to 5 FA batallions in a DIVARTY and usually 2 to 4 FA battalions in a CORPS ARTY group). :soap:

So (game world) that FA operation would have been impossible without "indirect fire by the map" as the 1st of the 358 INF would have been unable to call in fires from any FA unit other than those (3 to 5) of the 90th INF DIV. What might have happened at Niederwampach? :conf:

Of course the option may be abused in a "gamey" way. Many other rules, including default, can be used in a "gamey" way by those clever fellows who play that way. Obviously you can play any rules an opponent will agree to. I prefer to play a scenario where any FA unit can fire on any target within range. That reflects the actual capabilities of the Direct Support and General Support type artillery units of my real world experience during the '60s and '70s. I have given an example of that capability existing in the U.S. Army of January 1945.

Generally I don't play that rule as most opponents don't care for it. Perhaps they prefer to get 2 shots instead of one, or perhaps they prefer to pick the precise unit target. If an opponent feels strongly about a rule, I'll let them have it.

Of course the best of all possible artillery game worlds would be the capability to turn the rule on or off during a game.:whis:

Getting too wordy! Will discuss artillery unit missions further only if the discussion warrants it.

[Glenn Saunders]

Real world: "on January 15, 1945, in the VIII CORPS area of operations, the 1st BN of the 358th INF, 90th INF DIV makes a forced march into 6th ARM DIV sector to attack Niederwampach...... and gains town after artillery barrage by 14 (thats fourteen :eek1:) artillery battalions". U.S. Army in WWII,Special Studies, Chronology 1941 - 1945.

Jeez- hate to turn this into a peeing contest but I dont see a problem with your example and the game at all but then again I don't have a game OOB for all the units involved.

However VIII Corps is in the bulge OOB and has 13 Btlns of Arty there. It is possible that the Btln involved was able to call in 13 of the 14 Btln from VIII Corps Arty, either by having a single corps troop unit in spotting range, even if it wasn't involved in the actual attack. Or in game terms the Unit may have been attached to the parent formation.

In any case, the game engne does lots of things on AVERAGE and one could find all kinds of real examples that the engine does not simulate even within battles covered by the series.

When we run into one as we're making a new game, if the situation is really critical and requires the event to occur, then we adjust the engine accordingly to accommodate it. And we can accomodate the Arty Event with the optional rule being ON. But the same optional rule if used would allow XXX Corps air support to fly missions in support of 1st AB surrounded n Arhnem (in MG44). That is possible too isn't it - but it didn't happen. And if we allowed it to happen because it was technically possible, - ground units after all we capable of directing air support - well it would clearly yield results not consistent with the actualy battle - yes??

Anyway - you can argue the point from either side and ultimately it is up to you which way you want it because there is an optoinal rule which works in some cases and not in others. This D85 war never happen so we are speculating completely on the TYPICAL CASEnot what is possible.

And to come full circle, I agree that in 1944 and 1945 and 1985 for that matter it was POSSIBLE for one Btln to call fire support from 14 Arty Btln. And I am sure there are many examples like yours where it happened. But I don't think it norm. And I think that allowing this situation in the game as a normal case would or could lead to many odd situtions which in turn would lead to strange overall results. Just like it would with Market Garden.

...but you are free to use it if you like.

Glenn

[Mike Bowen]

Perhaps you need to create in OOBs (if you feel the need) Corps level spotters with high DV so they do not get zapped by artillery and low assault to stop improper use. Sort of like the naval spotters in Sicily. I am not saying the games need these just that that might be an answer to the point raised.

[Glenn Saunders]

Perhaps you need to create in OOBs (if you feel the need) Corps level spotters with high DV so they do not get zapped by artillery and low assault to stop improper use. Sort of like the naval spotters in Sicily. I am not saying the games need these just that that might be an answer to the point raised.

That would work too Mike - and lets not lose sight of WHY Naval Spotters were used in Sicily. It was not just because they existed - there is always a judgement call on what to include and what is too much detail.

The reason BRITISH Naval Spotters were used in Sicily is because there was a clear advantage in the system employed by the US on their beaches and Naval Firepower was the deciding factor in at least one case - and that fire was directed by ground units not spotter.

On the UK side, there was a case (or cases) where the British units could see the Navy off shore and their fire was desparately needed but they were unable to call the fire. I can't recall all the detal but I think they are in the notes.

Anyway - the point here is that spotters were used to contrast different capabilities within units on one side. Not because we wanted to make the OOB more detailed.

Glenn

[Al]

Another point to make is with the ability to hit a hex (choke point) without seeing it, a situation can exist where a WMD, specifically a nuke, is set off in that hex making it a major obstacle. This could have a major impact on the play of a smaller scenario.

Regards,
CptCav

It can have a major impact on a larger scenario, also! In all the talk about using massed artillery in a gamey way(?) I think my point got lost that the only way a player right now can use the viable tactic of targetting known choke points is by using the strikes by the map rule.

(Edited for better clarity)

[Aaron]

Well in MC the Nato player dosnt have the choice as to when to use WMDs, the Pact player does and they cant be used on choke points intill the Pact player uses them first, so its a decision left to the player playing the Pact side. And after WMDs are in play why wouldnt u want to use them on choke points, that would be the smartest thing to do both in the real world and the game. Wouldnt want to waste a nuke in the middle of a farm field.

Aaron

[FLG]

I can see how the rule can be turned to gamey play but generally for large scenarios it is not a worry. This is primarily because divisions are so large getting more than a couple close together is a real challange. You can split you art off the division but they end up low fuel/ammo and in a game of manouver they are liability rather than an asset.

Also, in a campaign if my oppoenent wants to target one point with all his art I don't mind at all because I will be coming through half a dozen points at once. And as I stream into his rear his art is a primary target.

Strike by map gives you a useful and realistic ability to hit unobsered targets, albeit with very low effectiveness.

At the end of the day if people want to use gamey tactics fair enough. They paid there hard earned for the game and they can do what they like with it. If you don't want to play gamey then that's your choice as well. Just make sure when you start a PBEM your opponent knows what your preferences are. I tell all my opponents I will call them ion anything I feel is gamey

[CptCav]

And after WMDs are in play why wouldnt u want to use them on choke points

Politically, it is not likely that NATO would fire a nuke at a vacant piece of land in order to deny access to the WarPac. The West Germans are very particular about their country being radiated. :chin:

When I participated in a command post exercise in 1984 called Golden Saber at Fort Hood, we had our howitzer batteries fire off two tac nukes somewhere on the NGP. The exercise was immediately paused while a PAO followed shortly thereafter by two BDR brigadier generals came over to our area to discuss everything possible about the strike (who gave the order, where was it targeted, what was the size of the warheads, where were the closest population centers, etc.) I, a smart a$$ 1LT , even got in a little trouble for telling the PAO, a captain :pullhair:, that we didn't need permission because we're CAV! Even so, I got a smile out of the squadron commander :rolleyes:. Afterwards, orders came out that neither side could use nukes for the rest of the exercise. However, that didn't stop the OPFOR from blasting our regiment with tons of chemicals. :boom2:

Regards,
CptCav

[Elxaime]

Just to confirm my initial question.

With the optional fire by map rule ON, the following effects are in place:

1. all arty/air can fire at any hex they can reach.
2. fire is at 1/4 effect if the hex is NOT spotted by a friendly unit
3. fire is also at 1/4 effect even if the hex is spotted IF the friendly spotter is not from the same organization.

Number 3 is the one I wanted to get corroboration on.

EXAMPLE:

1st Division is making an attack. 1st Division artillery fires at full effect at hexes spotted by 1st Division units and 1/4 effect at unspotted hexes AND hexes spotted by non-1st Division units.

Is this correct?

[Ricky B]

For what it is worth, here is how it used to be, say more than a year ago - it has changed in the past and could be different now, you could set up a fairly simple test to find out if you wish.

When using the optional rule for air and artillery by the map, ALL fire at hexes with no valid spotter for a specific artillery unit, with or without spotted enemy units in them, will occur at 1/4 strength. However, there is one exception. If the dust spotting value is more than 0, thus implementing the use of ? units that are not "spotted", ALL fire occured at full strength, even though by definition there could not be a spotter for this hex. In addition, for a spotted enemy unit, but one that your artillery unit did not have a spotter for, this specific enemy unit could be spotted by the artillery unit formation as a ? unit separately from the actual spotted unit, and thus fired at at full strength using this optional rule.

I do believe this changed so that fire at ? units now always happens at 1/4 strength, but for a long time it was full strength. I am not positive though, but you could test this out by laying out a scenario unit the rule and dialog box results to see what the fire strength is under the different conditions, including dust - it does require moving units to get the dust spotting too.

Rick