The problem is not the assault rule

[Von Earlmann]

Generals,
I am going to be one of those radical nuts here. I like the new assault rules.Just because a unit is outnumbered or cornered and or disrupted does not mean they should be automatically eliminated.Even a disrupted cornered rat will fight to the death.Just because said unit is all of the above and not disrupted doesn't mean they should automatically survive. Even an undisrupted cornered rat will eventually fight to the death and die.I never had the horror results described in previous threads. Don't get all emotional and begin another rant and rave,I am not calling anyone a liar. Just stating the facts for me.

The major problem is the los and artillery.Every combat unit in these games can efficiently call in arty fire except transport units which will at least see a question mark. Also, leaders see a question mark and they above all should be able to call in arty.

A lot of the problems would be solved if only spotter units and probably HQ units of a company could call in arty and this should require using aps (I know the hollywood types could call arty,fire an MG, throw grenades,fire a rifle, and bayonet or karate chop people all at the same time). The other units probably had little or no ability to call arty. I would have prefered seeing actual spotter units rather than sniper teams etc. Most every account I have read the units in the area were pretty sure when the arty fire was accurate they had a spotter around somewhere that needed to be dealt with.

I am not sure this idea could even be put in the game as a patch...........if it can please do.........if it can then for gods sake guys just deal with it! As for the stock scenarios (Non of which I play as I think most of them are lousy with any rules) do either that or set the assault rules to the old version.

But, don't take me too seriously..............I'm still upset about the collapse of the beaver fur trade when that British bloke wore the Fedora.

VE

[umbro]

VE:

I'll be your wing nut on this one. Perhaps a partial solution would be to have LOS for arty be based on LOS of units in the same org as the arty. If the target hex was not in LOS of a unit in the same org then it would be treated as an unsighted fire.

That saves having to have loads of two man units running around spotting, by assuming that they are attached to the regular units we already have. Plus, the old scenarios would not need to be unchanged.

umbro

[Mike Abberton]

I think HPS eventually changed their artillery rules in the Panzer Campaigns series (or added an option) to restrict artillery calls by organization.

It would be a good patch/solution as long as the scenario oob files were set up right.

[Jason Petho]

A few thoughts:

The new artillery system would have to be optional.

Artillery fire based on forward observers that are organization based:

Artillery Battalion (105mm)
Artillery Battalion HQ
105mm Battery
105mm Battery
105mm Battery
Trucks
Trucks
Trucks
Forward Observer*

* The number and type (armoured or not) of Forward Observers available would be dependent on typical national abilities of the time. An American battalion might have a couple/few where a romanian would have one?

Only the Forward Observer can call/plot artillery - either in LOS or On Map.

The Forward Observer uses Action Points to call/plot artillery?

Artillery values would remain constant throughout their range (as opposed to dropping off drastically as they do now with range).

Divisional or Corps Forward Observers that can call all artillery that are within the division or corps organization? Storch?

Some thoughts for discussion.

Jason Petho

[Copper]

Great point von Earlmann.

[Kool Kat]

Only the Forward Observer can call/plot artillery - either in LOS or On Map.

Introducing forward observers in CS certainly makes sense historically. It also is more realistic to limit the calling in / plotting of artillery barrages to trained personnel equipped with radios. I would support this proposed new optional rule! :)

Food for thought... I located the following snippet on the use of German forward observers in WWII.

"In the observation of fire, the greatest reliance by the Germans is placed on forward observers. Often the battery commander himself goes ahead in this role. The part that the observer plays in German field operations is brought out in the following translation from a recent issue of Artilleristische Rundschau.

The artillery forward observer (Vorgeschobene Beobachter) plays a decisive part in the success of infantry. In the attack he goes along with the infantry, accompanied by a radio operator. If the attack is stopped, this observer calls for fire on enemy points of resistance and carries the infantry on to the next assault. In static warfare, the observer orders destructive fire against the enemy and covering fire to aid his own troops. He also directs destructive fire against enemy infantry who are about to attack or actually attacking. The results of this are shown not only in the effective cooperation between the two arms, but in the existence of a spirit of brotherhood in combat--the artillery forward observer becomes the best friend of the infantry."

A translation from an issue of the German WWII publication Artilleristische Rundschau on the artillery forward observer, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 28, July 1, 1943.

[umbro]

I would be very circumspect about actual forward observer units. They would add a lot of clutter to the game. Plus, how are they replaced when destroyed, etc. Further, it seems they were attached to field units in their role.

I would also look carefully into artillery effectiveness over range. I think that the idea was that the greater the range the more difficult it was to correct in the 250m square target area.

The storch idea can be simulated with on map aircraft assigned to the appropriate org.

umbro

[Jason Petho]

I would be very circumspect about actual forward observer units. They would add a lot of clutter to the game. Plus, how are they replaced when destroyed, etc. Further, it seems they were attached to field units in their role.

Maybe having the Company HQ (assuming Command and Control is turned on?) act as the forward observer then?

Jason Petho

[Reddog]

A good topic.

What happens though if the FO that is assigned to an Artillery Battalion is eliminated. Does that mean the the entire Batt can't shoot and/or just become less effective? If you assign the FO to the Artillery Batt I think you would need more than 1 unit. Possibly 1 unit per each Battalion of infantry, tank and others in a Division may work? To cut down on too many small units onboard maybe use the Battalion Leaders (or add 1 more Leader per Battalion) to act as FO along with their other abilities. Then you would need to make a choice of keeping your Leaders in the back ground where it's safe or on the frontlines to enhance your artillery's effectiveness... just my thoughts.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I would be very circumspect about actual forward observer units. They would add a lot of clutter to the game. Plus, how are they replaced when destroyed, etc. Further, it seems they were attached to field units in their role.

Maybe having the Company HQ (assuming Command and Control is turned on?) act as the forward observer then?

Jason Petho

Maybe have the forward observer be given the visibility status of ATR platoons/squads? If they are truly two or three men teams with a radio they should have the same capacity to hide as the ATR units?

They may still get "tripped over" by advancing enemy units but, it would give them a some semblence of survivability? And, you would then need far fewer. Plus, it would require the owner to find really good terrain for the observer?
The detractions, of the unit, may be minimalized? And, I would exempt them from having a defensive strength. If destroyed the onus would then be placed on the HQ?

Ed