Realistic Artillery Management - FOO Rule

[RERomine]

If you feel you can't trust your opponent on it why bother at all?

Narwan

Hard to argue with that :)

[RERomine]

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.

Mortars can be nasty if you are on the receiving end of them. I've got one PBEM game running right now and that's all I have, none organic.

Tactical Info!!! I hope my opponent doesn't check out this thread ;)

We don't have any artillery related rules in effect other than all have to be on-board. Being non-organic to any company, the mortars would be battalion assets, not subject to being called by platoon and company commanders. If those aren't policed that's exactly what could happen. As I said however, there is no way to tell exactly who the observer for a fire mission actually is.

Maybe the solution is not to specify who observes for fire missions (which can't be verified) and instead limit the number of fire missions permitted, i.e. maximum of one per FOO and one per commander with organic assets.

Example: Three FOOs are purchased and one company has organic mortars = max. 4 fire missions. All of that can be verified at the end of the battle.

Allowing FOOs to handle two fire missions is also an option. It would enhance their value :)

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.

As per US Army FM 6-30 (TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FOR OBSERVED FIRE), FOOs can handle more than one fire mission and what you said make sense.

Looks like we are in agreement on the rest.

[Vesku]

And who would ever use FOO rule in such a battle?

What's that supposed to mean?
Narwan

It's supposed to mean that this rule is OPTIONAL. Why would you use it in a battle you know it doesn't make sense. You can always discuss changes in the rule with your oppo, like allowing company commanders to direct their own mortars. I can't see much sense in this whole discussion because the rule does not concern a single person who doesn't want to use it and can be modified to anything as long as both agree to it. Like you've said, you think that the original game does not need FOO rule to act realistic and I guess you will not use FOO rule.

I bet you wouldn't like to hear how we twist the game settings with Chris, the FOO rule is one thing to fix what we think is unbalance between arms. That is our opinion and we have agreed to use the settings including FOO rule to make the game work more to our liking.

Like Chris said, test your ideas and write it down, they can be posted on the forum.

[Weasel]

A bit of background: My first real reason for looking at the FOO rule was for the simple fact of CB. During a game it was incredibly common to see one on board gun targeted at each of the opponent's on board guns or at each little group of infantry and tanks that you may have spotted. Heck I know it happened because I was doing it too! So the standard practice was to deploy your battery spread over 50 hexes and buy some others and wait for your opponent to shoot. Once he fired each smoke puff would be targeted by as few as a single tube. So 20 on board guns, 20 seperate plots by 20 seperate guns.

Realism was not a factor but what we created was based on fact, albiet loosely. So the FOO rule is more a rule to prevent incredibly gamey play more then anything else.

Don't look at it as trying to put real FOOs into the game as that can never be simulated.

[Imp]

Well Narwan you have sold me causes as many problems as makes, cheers. SPWW2 is due a patch before Xmass that will fix PBEM campaigns but Andy also said it is giving arty a major work over so I am going to wait & see what they have done. SPMBT patch will follow shortly after. With luck might have put a couple of my ideas in.

On a few points unless playing MBT late era so good radio contact spreading your arty all over board will cause lots of contact probs anyway. If mad enough to spread all over then you should be able to target likewise. Nothing like getting hit by your own fire mission because you can't cancel it matey.

I regulary buy 2 FOOs except in small games using no rules. One stays safeish the other heads out trailing the scouts.

I have decided also chasing vehicles with arty is fine. They get to spread & run at the sniff of steel rain & it becomes a game of outguessing your opponent. Full movement, stop dead sideways temporary retreat. So many choices when really they would probably just keep heading for their objective. So it achieves artys prime goal disruption.
Changing games dropping MLRs on a group is most satisfying if do so with 0.0 or 0.1. On the other hand missing with is a big low.

Restricting area has another problem. If notice a big group of vehicles I would cover the area I am expecting them to move to with everything I had. Preferably just near where I can pop out & say hello after hopefully suppresing.

[RERomine]

A bit of background: My first real reason for looking at the FOO rule was for the simple fact of CB. During a game it was incredibly common to see one on board gun targeted at each of the opponent's on board guns or at each little group of infantry and tanks that you may have spotted. Heck I know it happened because I was doing it too! So the standard practice was to deploy your battery spread over 50 hexes and buy some others and wait for your opponent to shoot. Once he fired each smoke puff would be targeted by as few as a single tube. So 20 on board guns, 20 seperate plots by 20 seperate guns.

Realism was not a factor but what we created was based on fact, albiet loosely. So the FOO rule is more a rule to prevent incredibly gamey play more then anything else.

Don't look at it as trying to put real FOOs into the game as that can never be simulated.

Anymore, by the time your CB rounds would be falling, your targets will have moved or at least should have moved. Good to drop rounds to keep someone on their toes, however :) Someone might figure you don't drop CB and decide to stay in place. It's a wonderful cat and mouse game The FOO rule doesn't change that. Just means you can't blow someone entire artillery force apart in one turn.

There are a lot of other "rules" to make things more realistic, beyond just the FOO rule. Making something less gamey basically has the effect of making it more realistic, even if that wasn't the intent. There's nothing wrong with that.

You are correct in that it's not possible to make FOOs or any other aspect, completely realistic. It will be interesting to see what Andy has in mind for his changes. I'm surprised they are letting him go ahead with it, but he said he didn't like the artillery model. Maybe all this spit balling will translate into something good with is changes.

[Cross]

A bit of background: My first real reason for looking at the FOO rule was for the simple fact of CB. During a game it was incredibly common to see one on board gun targeted at each of the opponent's on board guns or at each little group of infantry and tanks that you may have spotted. Heck I know it happened because I was doing it too! So the standard practice was to deploy your battery spread over 50 hexes and buy some others and wait for your opponent to shoot. Once he fired each smoke puff would be targeted by as few as a single tube. So 20 on board guns, 20 seperate plots by 20 seperate guns.

Realism was not a factor but what we created was based on fact, albiet loosely. So the FOO rule is more a rule to prevent incredibly gamey play more then anything else.

Don't look at it as trying to put real FOOs into the game as that can never be simulated.

I hear you Chris. And I think you are right...up to a point.

I think maybe your solution is good, but goes a little too far. From 20 plots down to one; unless you buy multiple FOOs.

Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong direction. Another solution may be to only limit plots based on platoons of mortars or troops of artillery, rather than FOOs. One plot per troop or something simple like that.

Your post also brings up the issue that RERomine raised: The problem of artillery guns, from the same troop, spread all over the map, instead of being in realistically close proximity.

Anyway, sounds like this is all academic. I was aware an update was coming out in the next month or so, but wasn't aware that it would include changes to the artillery process.

Doesn't make sense to move forward with possible rules until we see what's new.

[RERomine]

Your post also brings up the issue that RERomine raised: The problem of artillery guns, from the same troop, spread all over the map, instead of being in realistically close proximity.

There were lots of comments over at the Shrapnel site about how much effort artillery units had to go through to set up, but no much mention was made about how unrealistic it would be to have the guns literally kilometers apart. I don't think they need to be hub to hub anymore, but control of the battery would be very complicated if the only method of communications between each gun was by radio.

The funny thing is, that's one thing the AI does that is realistic. It's batteries are almost always together, with the exception of mortars. Usually, there is no more than a one hex gap between guns and then it's typically only one gun that's separated. Someone on that crew must not have showered in the morning :)

I agree, we wait to see what Andy has in mind. Maybe he will give us some insight into his plans before hand so we can have some input. Sounds like he has the necessary background to make those decisions without input, however :bow:

[Cross]

Your post also brings up the issue that RERomine raised: The problem of artillery guns, from the same troop, spread all over the map, instead of being in realistically close proximity.

There were lots of comments over at the Shrapnel site about how much effort artillery units had to go through to set up, but no much mention was made about how unrealistic it would be to have the guns literally kilometers apart. I don't think they need to be hub to hub anymore, but control of the battery would be very complicated if the only method of communications between each gun was by radio.

The funny thing is, that's one thing the AI does that is realistic. It's batteries are almost always together, with the exception of mortars. Usually, there is no more than a one hex gap between guns and then it's typically only one gun that's separated. Someone on that crew must not have showered in the morning :)

I agree, we wait to see what Andy has in mind. Maybe he will give us some insight into his plans before hand so we can have some input. Sounds like he has the necessary background to make those decisions without input, however :bow:

Here's a good description of how the British - and probably commonwealth - would set their guns up:

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/maind...ganisation

Yes, those SPCamo guys certainly have my respect. I look forward to seeing the changes they've made. Not so easy with the antique code they're dealing with.

[Walrus]

Not so easy with the antique code they're dealing with.

You are SO correct.
Sometimes, when people are complaining about trivial things, I'd really like to able to make them only play the original versions of the game for a while and see how much they liked that!
These guys have done a sterling job, over nearly ten years now, to bring this game as far along as is possible.

My favorite is listening to complaints from players who have only DL the game and never paid for it.
Awesome form there.

Any changes that Andy and Don make will not have any effect on what we have been discussing here.
How to use and plot arty will still be the choice of the player.

Cheers