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

[Al]

I really don't have anything to add to the points already made by Foul & DS other than that I agree with what they're saying. I always found it a bit difficult to justify picking one specific target out the possibly many units occupying a hex - especially regarding indirect fire. Those targets usually are either the high-value units, such as AT or regular artillery or those units that remain undisrupted; as if the attacker is able to tell his units that the 1st battalion in hex x,y is disrupted so leave him alone, let's concentrate on the 2nd battalion in the same hex x,y.

With justification, some would say that British & US artillery fire control was so good that they "could" pinpoint one target in a hex. In the mid-80's I served for a short time in a Nat'l Guard 8" SP Howitzer unit & it was quite amazing the accuracy that could be achieved with those big guns using fire control methods that really hadn't changed a lot since WW2. (Remember this was pre-GPS days!) Since PzC is an either/or situation in regards to Alt fire rules I would submit that UK/US artillery units would rate a quality rating one/two levels higher than their infantry & armor counterparts - if the Alt fire rules are used.

In spite of all that I have rambled on about the scenarios were designed with certain Opt Rules to be used or not so the risk is run of un-balancing the game. In most all the PBEM I have played I just go with the rules suggested. However, I still do play against the AI & in those games I use Opt rules that I think are more "realistic" - all the Alt fire rules, QFM, artillery setup, night fatigue, recon spotting & limited air recon. In those games I haven't really noticed that "yea these really help one side of the other" but then again, it is against the AI.

One of these days soon when the distractions are fewer maybe I can come to a more definitive perspective on the use & effect of Alt fire rules but for now these views are just my .02 :soap: