Realistic Artillery Management - FOO Rule

[RERomine]

While it is realistic that company commanders would have control over organic assets, it's just as realistic that players will exploit loopholes in the game to create unrealistic sitatuations.

Loopholes:

1) Platoon and company commanders calling in battaltion and higher artillery. The US did it during WWII, but there was no guaranty they would get it and WinSPWW2 and SPWaW don't have the capacity to say, "No, you can't have it". Low level unit commanders didn't call higher level artillery assets with other nations. How do you police that? The game doesn't tell you who the spotting unit is, so how can you tell if it's the one company commander spotting for his mortar or a CO from another company is calling in his mortar? Or a platoon leader isn't calling in four batteries of artillery because he happens to have "eyes on"?

2) One observer calling in artillery on multiple targets. Does anyone know realistically how many fire missions someone can call in and keep straight? I really don't know, but it's probably not a high number. In the games (SPWaW, WinSPWW2), one observer can "handle" calling in artillery on as many positions as the player has firing units, even if it doesn't have LOS. It's not a stretch to say that's not realistic. It's a game thing.

Those are the two that come to mind, but the point is trying to keep P2P games realistic and honest. Reagan said, "Trust, but verify". A rule that can't be verified is a pointless rule. We aren't trying to kill the existing "rule" but expand it in a way that permits more realism, without compromising verification. Also, it is important that the "rules" not require a computer program to determine if they are being followed or not. Keeping it simple is also a requirement.

Again, everything is optional. Both players just have to agree.

[Weasel]

I can keep coming up with examples. Point is that the FO rule 'solves' one problem but creates others. It's not more realistic.

Narwan

I never said the FOO rule was to make arty more realistic per say, I have always said that it is to limit players from buying a SINGLE FOO for the decreased time delay and then having him plot 50 shoots at once, each consisting of a single tube.

[Weasel]

Guys, don't turn the discussion into a slamming match please. If so, I will delete the posts and lock the thread.

This is a good topic and discussion, and as I have learned the hard way, Steel Panthers is no where near "the most realistic simulation of combat" it claims to be in reviews and such. It is a game, no different from a board game except the computer does the math and movement for you.

You can tweak it to your liking, but you will never make it real world so lets not argue and try to go there.

[Cross]

It seems like the goal here is to come up with an alternative FOO rule that allows for sheafs and is simple to understand. Once this is accomplished it would need to be play tested.

After reading through all of the suggested changes to my preliminary suggestion, how about this:


1. FOO and A0 HQ may control artillery.

1b.Company commanders may control up to a platoon of mortars that are attached to their company.

Otherwise you could buy artillery assets, attach them to your five companies and effectively have 6 FOOs.

2. Only one target ‘sheaf’ per controller may be plotted at a time. You cannot start another ‘sheaf’ until the first is cancelled.

Personally, I think making batteries stay in the same sheaf will add an additional layer of complexity that I’m trying to avoid. I see the realism of the suggestion, but IRL didn't troops - not batteries - always had the same fire mission?

3. FOO may plot a sheaf by targeting guns within 2 hexes of any other plot.
FOO can cluster his guns, plot them in a line, a circle and even a curve, as long as each plot is within 100m of any of his other plots.

Do we limit the size of a sheaf? IMO, this adds complexity and doesn’t add realism. Sheaf sizes are already limited by the amount of artillery you have on call.

4. Whenever a controller chooses to correct, ‘creep’ or adjust fire, he must plot his guns according to rule number 3.

Is this an issue:

A. Controller does not have to adjust his plots.

OR

B. Controller must adjust his plots every turn to make sure they abide by rule 3.

5. Plots may be dropped or added to the sheaf at any time. As long as the sheaf continues to abide by rule number 3.

This will keep it simple; and if a controller is only overseeing one sheaf he should be able to handle artillery coming on or off line.

---

It still has only 5 points!!!

If I left out any suggestions, please feel free to make your case, critique, suggest changes and build consensus.

[RERomine]

I never said the FOO rule was to make arty more realistic per say, I have always said that it is to limit players from buying a SINGLE FOO for the decreased time delay and then having him plot 50 shoots at once, each consisting of a single tube.

Your rule brings it closer to reality than doing nothing, even if it wasn't your intent.

Overall, there has to be some sort of happy in between on this. Yes, making the "rule" may make some other realistic aspect "illegal", we aren't going to make it "perfect" short of modifying the code artillery model. With WinSPWW2/WinSPMBT, I think Andy would like to take a cut at it, but I don't expect that to happen. It's a matter of making the "bigger" unrealistic aspect "illegal" and accepting the side effects of making smaller "reals" just as "illegal".

I can see Narwan's points, but what can be done? Which is worse (gamey), one observer calling in 50 fire missions or a CO being unable to use his organic assets as he see's fit? Is there a way to make both work and allow verification? Remains to be seen.

Our hammer is missing and we need to drive a nail, so we are grabbing a wrench and use that. Not the best option, but it works.

[RERomine]

1. FOO and A0 HQ may control artillery.

1b.Company commanders may control up to a platoon of mortars that are attached to their company.

Otherwise you could buy artillery assets, attach them to your five companies and effectively have 6 FOOs.

How can you verify that a company commander is observing for only their organic assets? Or for that matter, how can you tell the spotting unit isn't some other zero unit? The only thing that can really be verified is that the number of called fire missions doesn't exceed the number of FOOs. Beyond that, there is no way to tell who the observer is.

2. Only one target ‘sheaf’ per controller may be plotted at a time. You cannot start another ‘sheaf’ until the first is cancelled.

Personally, I think making batteries stay in the same sheaf will add an additional layer of complexity that I’m trying to avoid. I see the realism of the suggestion, but IRL didn't troops - not batteries - always had the same fire mission?

If I'm understanding you, what you mean is if the original call is a linear sheaf and you shift it, it should still a linear sheaf. I've thought of that too, but understand the additional complexity.

3. FOO may plot a sheaf by targeting guns within 2 hexes of any other plot.
FOO can cluster his guns, plot them in a line, a circle and even a curve, as long as each plot is within 100m of any of his other plots.

Do we limit the size of a sheaf? IMO, this adds complexity and doesn’t add realism. Sheaf sizes are already limited by the amount of artillery you have on call.

I would just keep it at "within 2 hexes" and forget the geometric shapes. If someone wants to drop arty and spell their name, as long as the plots are within 2 hexes of another, I would allow it. Just my 2 cents on that.

4. Whenever a controller chooses to correct, ‘creep’ or adjust fire, he must plot his guns according to rule number 3.

Is this an issue:

A. Controller does not have to adjust his plots.

OR

B. Controller must adjust his plots every turn to make sure they abide by rule 3.

Not sure on this. We can tell where the artillery was intended to fall, but we also know how the it scatters around. How about making it conform if they choose to adjust? That puts it in the middle of your two options.

5. Plots may be dropped or added to the sheaf at any time. As long as the sheaf continues to abide by rule number 3.

This will keep it simple; and if a controller is only overseeing one sheaf he should be able to handle artillery coming on or off line.

Dropping would be as easy as telling certain guns to cease fire, so that makes sense. I would think adding would be realistically more complex. Sounds like that would be more along the lines of a new fire mission, even if they are hitting the same location. Again, my 2 cents.

[Cross]

Hi RERomine

How can you verify that a company commander is observing for only their organic assets? Or for that matter, how can you tell the spotting unit isn't some other zero unit? The only thing that can really be verified is that the number of called fire missions doesn't exceed the number of FOOs. Beyond that, there is no way to tell who the observer is.

The way I see it, expect mortars to have completely separate fire missions/sheafs as other artillery; which is often the way it was in real life (IRL). I guess this would mean you shouldn’t expect to be able to ‘police’ your opponent’s mortars.

If I'm understanding you, what you mean is if the original call is a linear sheaf and you shift it, it should still a linear sheaf. I've thought of that too, but understand the additional complexity.

A sheaf can change shape at the controller’s direction, as long as his sheaf continues to abide by rule 3.

I would just keep it at "within 2 hexes" and forget the geometric shapes. If someone wants to drop arty and spell their name, as long as the plots are within 2 hexes of another, I would allow it. Just my 2 cents on that.

Lol, I agree, any shape you like, as long as your plots or adjustments abide by rule 3.

Not sure on this. We can tell where the artillery was intended to fall, but we also know how the it scatters around. How about making it conform if they choose to adjust? That puts it in the middle of your two options.

I agree. Let arty fall where it may. Personally, I think rule 3 should only apply when you choose to plot or adjust your artillery.

Let’s say your FOO calls in a stonk, then gets into a firefight, running from ditch to ditch or whatever. Meanwhile rounds are falling all over the park. When he finally picks up his binos and radio again, and gets around to correcting it, then rule 3 applies.

Dropping would be as easy as telling certain guns to cease fire, so that makes sense. I would think adding would be realistically more complex. Sounds like that would be more along the lines of a new fire mission, even if they are hitting the same location. Again, my 2 cents.

My understanding is that an FOO could handle two sheafs at a time, but this was the exception to the rule. I guess if a target becomes more of a priority than it was, it’s reasonable to think a FOO could request additional Batteries without having to cancel those already ‘on target’. He already has the coordinates etc. in his notebook. But I’d think this was the exception, but realistic.

[Weasel]

I have read all the mods for the FOO rule and to be honest I still don't see one proposed that is more simplistic then what is already in effect. One FOO = 1 shoot of whatever combo of assets you wish. Once the rounds land you adjust all of them or none of them, up to you. That is pretty easy to understand.

[RERomine]

I have read all this mods for the FOO rule and to be honest I still don't see one proposed that is more simplistic then what is already in effect. One FOO = 1 shoot of whatever combo of assets you wish. Once the rounds land you adjust all of them or none of them, up to you. That is pretty easy to understand.

What we are kicking around would be more complex than the existing "rule". There is no doubt about that. Just trying to get a touch more realism without requiring the need of a PhD to understand the end result.

To add to the realism, I'm thinking on selling a line of cordite scented candles as well so we can burn them while we play :smoke:

[Narwan]

Hi Chris,

no slamming intended from my side. It's just that I don't agree that the rule makes the game as a whole more realistic (which is a view I gathered at least some people here have of it). It only adresses a single issue and created new ones. I don't think it's better (or worse), just a different sort of unrealism.

I have a very simple solution, as simple as it gets. Plotting rule: "A unit can plot one arty mission".

That's it. No specification of FO's, A0, company commanders or whatever. Every unit that should be able to plot a misison still can but no more than 1. A0's and other non FO's are already handicapped by a longer delay, less ability to shift and a higher chance of fire drifting so it's not as if they'll all suddenly turn into FO's.
There's off course the problem of what an 'arty mission' is but why solve that now? Since players have to agree before a game whether to use the rule or not let them decide at that point what they want to define as a mission. Prepare some options they can choose from if you like. Those can include the 'only plot for subordinate units' and the 'a mission includes subsequent adjusting/continuation of fire', etc.

If your worry is policing the rule than it's simple too, don't use any. If you feel you can't trust your opponent on it why bother at all?

Narwan