Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

[Crossroads]

The issue here is the nature of indirect fire and its results.
My point here, and Dan's assertion to it, is that a result on indirect that is plotted and planned into spotted terrain should get more credit and have more effect than indirect that is thrown "by map" into unspotted terrain, and happens to land on a target (hex).

We do agree on the concept of "landing on a hex" and the result thereof. I just think the application is wrong.

My point here is that a hex represents a large piece of terrain. Your likelihood of actually hitting what is located in it by indirect fire is much better if you can see what you are shooting at...do you dispute this?

I would like to see indirect by map and its results on armor be mitigated in the same manner that indirect by map and its results on infantry are mitigated. Currently you receive the same "roll" on the same table regardless of whether you see what you hit or you don't. The likelihood of disable is thus the same.

Essentially you need to spot infantry to maximize artillery on indirect, you do not however, currently need to spot armor to maximize its effect. It is a "glitch" in the game. It does not reflect any sort of reality, unless you believe that artillery spotting is a waste of time.

This is an interesting discussion, many good points made for and against :)

The point I would like to add to this thread is that spotted and unspotted are not arty terms as such, they relate to the game engine. An arty battery would be more concerned whether a target is (pre-)plotted or not.

In a case where the target is preplotted, the battery, or a number of batteries for that matter, can quickly adjust their tubes accordingly.

In case where FO has spotted a live target, the battery plotting team or plotter (sorry, I do not know what the term is in English but that is what I mostly did when I did my service) need to quickly calculate the proper bearings for the guys at the guns, before they can fire away. That takes maybe a minute or two of manual work, so within the six minute turn time it is definitively doable.

As for the unspotted shelling towards likely target areas, it is often likely that both the attacking and defending sides have preplotted a number of target areas and communicated that to artillery before the action begins. It is also likely that many if not most of the commanding officers are aware of these preplotted targets and can radio in arty support. Strong engine sounds from behind the hill: call in arty to shell a certain crossroads (no pun ;) ) or road area or village hex!

As for the 250m hex side. Arty fire is often targeted towards smaller areas, a typical generic target would more likely be a 100x100m target area. As for the abstraction within the game: a hex containing a road - certainly the 100x100 area would be around the road, and equally likely the soft or hard targets would be advanding within 50 meters of the road, if not in the road itself.

Therefore a shell is a shell and once it lands on the top of your head it will do the job. I am not particularly happy that unspotted indirect fire has a modifier. It can easily be abstracted that it was a preplotted likely target, and when you count in the surprise effect of the target becoming aware of the shelling only once the explosions start, I could live without the modifier. I can live with it as well.

As for the hard targets, it was already mentioned that the tank crews were highly trained individual professionals. If a shrapnel seriously wounds the leader, catches the driver taking a leak or gunner making tea, the particular tank would be out of action until they receive replacements. Therefore, strength points should be lost in the game.

I agree disruption would be a good way to model a tank platoon under heavy shelling, A full platoon becoming disabled is a tough roll of dice, but within the few hours of battle it can happen, I guess. Especially when a bit of imagination is again used. Leading officer died. One tank received a broken track. Rest of the guys lost the elan. Tough luck...

Overall. I am quite happy how artillery is modified and IMHO it does not need any serious tweaks. Even the capability to call and concentrate arty very flexibly in six minute turns was possible at the time. Towards the end of war, Finns for example ( EDIT: often->at times ) at times used one minute barrages that hit the target just before a counter attack started. It aimed for a surprise element, and at times had five to-ten arty battalions i.e. tens and tens of guns joining in for maximum effect. These were co-ordinated by a named arty officer, responsible for that particular section.

Of course, now I am talking about various artillery doctrines of various countries that evolved over the time of WWII. But what I am saying is that what we have at the moment is pretty accurate, and certainly feels right.

Just my 0.02, of course