firing at hex with multiple targets

[PawelM]

I am not familiar with detailed implementation of direct fire, i.e.
did not write the code fot it nor have the access to it. However I can
make a guess there is already mechanics in the game which with little modification would allow to implement my proposal (assuming there is a desire to do this). The analysis below is based on some guesses and if Jason or anyone else can point out any missed assumption I would need to re-think it.

Currently the attacker can select multiple units and fire with all of
them "at the same time" (say 3 attackers A1,A2 and A3). I am assuming there is some queue of attackers created and then a fire action is executed one by one with new attack:defense ratio and separate dice
roll considered.This could be used for my idea as a solution with
potentially least changes required and with some "pre-" and
"post-processing" required on top of existing direct fire mechanics.

"Pre-processing" would involve mainly "splitting" a single firing unit
into "virtual" 1SP size units for the purpose of the direct fire
action. This would mean the unit could be considered then analogically
to the multiple platoon queue. If we have a 3SP attacker, we would
split it in 4x1SP attackers for the purpose of the direct fire result
evaluation. There would be number of other things to do at this stage,
for instance disrupted unit or unit short of ammo would have to be
represented accordingly with number of "virtual unit" number
reflecting that. Also if there is a commander each virtual single SP
unit would have to have the command modifier added with the commander
"paying" only single fire action to keep it sensible. There might be
number of other things happening here which I did not think of, but I
hop you guys get the idea. Next step is to carry out fire using the
queue of single SP units, same way as multiple platoons firing
currently. If the the target has not been eliminated or retreated and
all "virtual" 1SP unit fired then there will be no difference in the
outcome from what you get with the current mechanics. However if this
is not the case extra code would be required to deal with it.

Lets say  out of 4x1SP attackers (created from 1x4SP unit) first three
achieved "-1SP"/"no effect"/ "-1SP". If we assume after suffering
second "1SP" loss the target is eliminated. If we were dealing with a
direct fire from 4 separate platoons this would mean the 4th platoon
would not fire, i.e. would not have used up any APs. Then here is
where I see my proposal kicking in. The fourth "virtual attacker"
(e.g. spare gun in AT batter etc) still has not fired. If there is no
more targets in the same hex then similarly the fire action ends here
and proceeds exactly the same way as it would normally. Understandably
it will not result in "real" master unit saving any APs due to the
fact 1SP did not fired, as this would be silly. However if there are
targets in the SAME hex which are VISIBLE to the attacker, then the
attacker should have an option to fire it. The fire could be carried
out automatically if there is just one target meeting the criteria
(i.e. in the same hex and visible to the attacker). If there is a
number of suitable target a a fire dialog similar to the current fire
dialog should appear to allow the secondary to be selected. And then
well fire with remaining SP(s) at the second target. I think it would
make sense to limit number of these attacking SP "carry overs", i.e.
allow this only for 1 or 2 more targets after the primary. Say if by
any chance primary target is eliminated and the secondary target is
eliminated and there are still firing SPs available one could stop
after secondary target is eliminated or allow one more target to be
fired at. Such fine tuning could be done during the testing phase to
see what is best.

Another thing about which I cannot make up my mind (and hope to hear
some feedback on) is if the "unused" firing points should be allowed
for carry over if the primary target is retreated. I think to keep it
consistent they should but I am not 100% sure about this one.

Does this proposal appeal to anyone?  I am not claiming I have covered
every possible scenario here, but I treat it as a presentation of
principle. I think with input from other more experienced gamers  with
better game mechanics knowledge it could be worked on to fill in the
gaps.

PS: Hopefully my elaboration was not clear only to me and I managed to
keep it clear for others too :)

sorry for the formatting, but I used my phone and it is not the best device. :)