Artillery Spotting & Changes

[timshin42]

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.

Given the FACT that the American Fire Support system, largely developed by MG McNair at Ft Sill PRIOR to WWII, coupled with the Signal/Communications capabilities developed by the American Army prior to and during the war, DID INDEED give US artillery the capability to deliver indirect fire regardless of the chain of command, (with varying levels of effectiveness depending largely on the Artillery Missions assigned to the firing units). , the US system modelled in JTCS is not generally unrealistic.
Two basic items which are I HAPPEN TO THINK ARE UNREALISTIC: the failure to recognize the unique ability of US artillery to deliver ACCURATE predicted fires (unobserved fires), and no capability for TOTs (simultaneous converging fires of several to many artillery units with a large effect multiplier). The above comments are addressed to a stand alone US model.

The superior results of British observed fires, due to assignment of more senior, experienced officers to their FOO teams, is not recognized in that model. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS UNREALISTIC.

The Soviets attached little importance to observed fires, thus virtually did not have FOs, nor did they train maneuver commanders in the skill. The Soviets almost exclusively used preplanned fires and enormous massed fires and rolling barrages to very great effect. The absence of that capability in the JTCS model, along with having the the same capabilities for observed fire as the US Artillery: well I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS UNREALISTIC.

The prewar limitation on German artillery number of units permitted, resulted in a greater dependence and superior capabilities of close air support and tank mobility and lesser reliance and less capability of FA combat support other than in the defense is only marginally modelled, and they have features identical to the US, Soviet, and British. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS UNREALISTIc.

The Japanese had crummy field artillery weapons, tactics and doctrine and really didn't give a damn about field artillery, yet they have the same model as all the others. Need I state how realistic I think that is?

In summary, the unique advantages and disadvantages of the different nations artilleries are not recognized. I have identified specifically some of the most obvious anomalies; I'm sure many of you can identify others.

Perhaps some of the solutions can be achieved by system designers, like Jason, (not SCENARIO designers, who face the same restrictions of "unreal" that players face). Perhaps some can be achieved only by the programmers. Perhaps some are just wishful thinking.

Jason has identified that this is curently only in the "thinking about it" stage, so arguing and bickering about it is non-productive. Blue sky it! Just because I happen to think that certain ideas are silly from a real world perspective doesn't mean they aren't practical or won't work from a gaming perspective.

Simply saying I disagree with "X" person , or "its not realistic" is also unproductive without SPECIFICALLY identifying what it is you think is not right AND SPECIFICALLY what you would like to see done or changied.

We can all be very helpful to the Project Manager (Jason) or we can be a bunch of bickering, braying jackasses!