Artillery Spotting & Changes

[Herr Straße Laufer]

From the Matrix CS Forum:

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 ®, 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 >

I agree with this presentation by timshin42.
Before too many changes take place, in all categories beyond artillery, timshin42's words should be considered: Make a change if you will; but make it an educated, meaningful one, or don't bother.

Words to live by?

RR

[Huib Versloot]

It would have been better to give a link for the whole thread.

I disagree with timshin btw when it comes to the current arty system.
As a scenario designer I'm constantly bumping on the limits of the current arty system which couldn't be more flawed IMO.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

It would have been better to give a link for the whole thread.

I disagree with timshin btw when it comes to the current arty system.
As a scenario designer I'm constantly bumping on the limits of the current arty system which couldn't be more flawed IMO.

So you are going to dismiss his comment because you found something you do not like? How about understanding his words?
I am leary of the "moving and shakers" in the development team that have, and will, fail to head timshin42's words.

I copied and pasted timshin42's entire post and his words can stand alone. If "others" wish to review everything that was written on the Matirx forum I am sure they can navigate their way there?

They are his words and I agree with them.

RR

[FM WarB]

Last vote count: 34-8 in favor of some sort of optional change.[/i]

[Kool Kat]

From the Matrix CS Forum:

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 ®, 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 >

I agree with this presentation by timshin42.
Before too many changes take place, in all categories beyond artillery, timshin42's words should be considered: Make a change if you will; but make it an educated, meaningful one, or don't bother.

Words to live by?

RR

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? (Fixed - Jason informed me that transport and solitary leaders cannot currently call in artillery fire. So, I would vote NO on revamping the artillery spotting / fire rules)

Maybe err on the more "simple" fix side? :chin:

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

[Jason Petho]

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

[Valor]

I will support a call for caution in changing the spotting / call for fire rules.

I don't know what was the Soviet system, I'm not sure how it worked in US army in WW2. So to illustrate the complexity of the issue I will use the example of Polish Army pre-war and during 1939 Campaign.

Normally artillery which was supporting infantry was developing fire-plan and deplyed forward artillery observers to correct fire. That was the normal way of doing business.

At the same time every officer, starting from platoon leader and company commander were trained in artillery system to be able to call for arty fire. And that what was happening during the campaign. When the artillery observers couldn't do their business (killed, wounded, on the move etc.) it was up to commander to call for fire. And they did.

So giving all authority only to the arty observers (or whatever you call them) is a bit decreasing the training for unit commanders.

The only solution I would think of, if the Designers want to make changes, is that arty called for by arty observers has 100% of being properly (I mean accurately) provided, while arty called for by units would have - lets say 10% possibility of being drifted one hex or so.

But that creates another problem, how to judge every specific commander of platoon? That would arise another problem how to compare German, American, British, Polish, Soviet, Dutch etc officer training? How to compare their communications systems?

That would be a good material for PhD dissertation

Taking above into consideration, and improvements already being made, I would say don't fix if it's not broken.

Just my thoughts

Slawek

[FM WarB]

If it aint broke, dont fix it.
Given the reliability and simplicity of the any unit can spot for any friendly indirect fire unit regardless of chain of command or national artillery usage system, it certainly aint broke.

I happen to think it's unrealistic.

[Huib Versloot]

IMO it is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Most importantly Artillery needs a separate ammo level. (old scenarios could stay at their original default level)

Artillery could use an optional spotting system, to achieve more realistic fire results. (not necessarily to add realism by more micro management) An abstracted spotting system is allright with me.

Both proposed changes will only apply to new scenarios. So there won't really be a problem with the old ones.

As a designer I know how many tricks you have to build in the scn to make artillery at least somewhat realistic. Some players perhaps fail to recognize which of these design methods are used and then might think the current system is OK.
I think a designer can ask for new optional rules if he and the developer think that will improve the game. If they are right, people will play and keep playing the new scenarios. If the designers and developers where wrong the new scns won't be played. It is as simple as that.
So from my point of view, one would have to know more about scenario designing than me to convince me that arty doesn't need to be changed. These people hardly exist and as far as they do, they agree with me as far as I know.

That such a change should be an educated, meaningful one, speaks for itself. I have trust that this will be case.
Huib

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Last vote count: 34-8 in favor of some sort of optional change.

And, if everyone voted for "wego" or volcanoes would that make it right?
If the 34 to 8 "change it now" votes were from artillery experts in modern combat or historians of the use of Artillery in WWII, I'd say you have may have an argument?

If they are game players who just want a change because they don't like the way it is now, then I think there is a need for some research before making a change?
I think the "reality" at all cost players may want to have a look before they create something that is more unreal than what is in the system now?

I'm really not one that is for "change for change sake" like those who wanted things to "slow down the game" because they did not like the "fast" way it played in it's original form.

I understand that "option" is a key word for you. Do it right, are the key words for me.
Volcanoes as an "option" would not add to the game either?

RR