Do we have too much control over fire in PzC, what’s your opinion?

[Dog Soldier]

I have long wondered if the rules covering direct fire, arty & airstrikes give us to much control over which unit can be targeted in a stack of multiple units and if the alternate fire rules actually represent a more realistic representation of WW2 combat?

So what is the issue with the default rules?
Well in most cases you have to disrupt all your opponents units before launching an assault and to achieve this we all use direct fire, arty fire & air strikes, the issue I have is that when a 1km hex contains multiple units we have the “god like” ability to seek out the undisrupted units and concentrate all our direct/arty/airstrike fire on just those units until we achieve the perfect situation, does this represent the abilities of troops in WW2 with the weapon technology available or do the Alternate Fire rules represent a more accurate depiction where the fire effects is spread amongst a random number of the units in the hex and in the case of the Alternate arty/airstrike rule you cannot target a particular unit and the proportional size of the units in the target hex is also taken into account when allocating losses?

This is how I see it from many years of cardboard and PC gaming.

Hex based, turn driven game theory has always assumed the hex grid is a tool for the approximate location of a unit.
ZOC theory in hexagonal war games has assumed that the unit controls the hex it is in and the six hexes touching the occupied hex.
Taken together these fundamentals of hexagonal war gaming imply a single unit could really be in any of the seven hexes. Thus a stack is not a dog pile (just had to use that term ) but a representation of units in the seven hex area.

Now add in the idea of a third dimension, time as in two hour turns and one could suppose that not all units in a stack are necessarily spotted or even present in the target hex when any one artillery, air strike, or direct fire attack is made.

The alt fire rules mentioned in this thread consider these factors of hex and turn based games to be compressed due to the congested nature of the terrain for that particular battle.
The alt fire rules actually do target the unit you pick in the Target Dialog box, but also spread collateral damage to the other units. this is to simulte the tight quarters of the terrain.
At least that explains the hedgerows in N44 and northern France in F40. T41 is a game I have not really played. IIRC the designer used the alt fire rules to offset the very small units used in the game. Other wise the small units would be vaporized like so many insects being stomped on every turn. not much fun to play in that case.

I always thought PzC should be adapted to a WEGO system. That way, you never really know if the units you were attacking would stand fast, retreat on contact, be reinforced just before the assault goes in, or even attack you first to spoil your attack. Would the defenders hold fire until the assault or be under orders to fire first?
Defensive artillery fire could then be allocated and the attacker could not adjust in mid turn for it, he would just have to anticipated it and allocated sufficient forces to get the job done.

A little more FOW would be helpful. Looking at a unit that is static in a turn based system really is the problem in defending in PzC. Too much information is available for the experienced player. How about units which disrupt, but are not really disrupted? This would simulate a friendly unit reporting the enemy is pinned when they really were not. The reverse could be true also. A small percentage chance of this happening would go a long way in helping out a defense. Attackers would not be certain, though reasonably sure the enemy was sufficiently softened up before making an assault. Assaults were always dangerous things in WW2.

Anyhow, I have rambled a little off topic. Hope this is food for a thoughtful discussion.

Dog Soldier