Realistic Artillery Management - FOO Rule

[Cross]

Preamble

The 'optional FOO rule' came up in discussion over at the Shrapnel site, and that caused me to start a thread about Realistic Artillery Management by a FOO; but someone sensibly pointed out that it may be useful to discuss it here.

I'm not trying to change anyones mind on the current 'optional FOO rule' and think Chris' intuition to address the situation was right. But even though I'm no expert, I'd like to try to share my understanding of WW2 artillery management and get others input.

FOO Rule

I think the "gamey" concern is the apparent control, by the FOO, of individual guns; which appears to allow him to plot each gun at individual targets all over the map. I agree this is somewhat gamey.

The optional FOO rule at the Blitz (in a nut shell) only allows a FOO to plot artillery on one hex. So you have to buy multiple FOOs to have even slight control of artillery on the battlefield.

IMHO this option essentially uses a 1000Kg bomb to KO a pesky jeep.

Realistic FOO Abilities

My understanding of reality, is that a FOO would normally control a minimum of a troop of guns or platoon of mortars (about 4 tubes), rather than individual guns.

However, and this is important, the FOO would give directions to the troop/battery commander who would control the individual guns. And this control could be precise and varied. Artillery was the most sophisticated arm of the army.

The FOO could order all sorts of different types of barrages, which effectively controlled the targeting of individual guns.

Lines

* * * *

The FOO would choose the spacing, the troop or battery commander would make it happen.

A troop of 4 guns would space their shells apart in a line. The spacing would depend on the target, terrain, size of the round and desired effect. A 200 yard line for a troop of guns wouldn’t be uncommon, but then the FOO could diverge the barrage for a less concentrated effect.

* - - * - - * - - *

Gun troops usually sited their guns in a line to help facilitate this.

This sort of barrage was often advanced ahead of attacking infantry. The infantry would ‘lean into the barrage’; which means 4.5 inch (115mm) field guns may be targeted in a line only 150 yards ahead of friendly infantry. FOOs could even change the angle of the line as it moved!

I often use this pattern in SP myself; it’s also useful against an attacking enemy line.

It was also used to lay down curtains of smoke.

Bracket

-- *
Target
-- *

A FOO may choose to bracket a target. Individual guns will fire slightly longer or shorter to achieve this.

Linear

Another pattern was linear:

*
*
*
*

FOO’s could even lay down two parallel lines of smoke (wind permitting) - several hundred yards apart – so tanks could advance between them protected from ATG flank shots.

*s*m*o*k *e*

TANKS -->

*s*m*o*k*e*

Concentrations

Tar*get

All guns would stonk a target at a specific point. Map coordinates accurate to 10M would be used. Adjustments would be in 25M increments.

Diverged Concentration

Undo or diverge concentrations

--- * -- *

* - Target - *

--- * -- *

The FOO can then chose to spread the concentration, perhaps as the enemy target is dispersed. Again, the FOO doesn’t plot individual guns, but the troop/battery commander follows a practiced procedure to achieve the desired result.

How Many Target Areas Could a FOO Handle?

The FOO would usually handle the batteries troops independently. He could target one troop out ahead and another on a flank. Not only would he handle troops independently, but he would also adjust each troop’s pattern in the target area as described above. He had a whole toolbox of options at his disposal; his only option wasn’t to stonk one target. But neither could he target individual guns all over the map.

I know for a fact that FOOs could handle more than one target area, but not sure if they could handle more than two. If anyone has any info, I’d love to hear it.

I doubt there’s a coding solution, and besides the current situation is fine; in fact we have the best artillery routine in any game I’ve come across.

Possible Optional Solutions

If I were to suggest optional restrictions for SP they might include some of the following:

1. FOO can only target two areas at a time.

This would cut back on individual guns plotted all over the map.

2. Guns within the same section/troop/battery must target the same target area.

This means a FOO must plot all the guns from a unit in the same general area.
A target area for a section could be 150M, a troop 300M and a battery 600M.

Therefore, if a FOO had a Battery and an additional troop on call, he must plot all of the battery guns within 600M of each other; and all the troop’s guns must be plotted within 300M of each other.

3. Only Battalion or Company commanders may target battalion or company mortars.


I’d be interested to hear if anyone could correct me, or educate me further regarding WW2 artillery management.

[Imp]

Cant help with further info but makes sense. I would say dont give battery area restrictions rather define patterns as in
1)all fire at 1 hex
2)fire in a star around centre hex
--- * -- *

* - Target - *

--- * -- *

3)Fire in a line any axis just straight
All guns must follow same spacing so adj or 1 or 2hexes apart
Other possibilities are
4) Staggered line 1 forward 2 back
5) Cluster similar to 2 all placements must be adj to 2 other spots so tighter than 2 but loser than 1.

Thinking about as write probably say a line or any symetrical pattern in a area upto 300m

As you say I am sure capable of directing 2 but that is probably the limit. To call in I would think he gives location & dispersal pattern then corrects, fits within game turn timeframe to 2 targets info yes 6 no.
Could be worth putting a shout out for someone who has served in arty as I am sure modern will use much the same or with GPS may actually control less to bring in on specific spot if talking likes of MLRS

[Vesku]

I know for a fact that FOOs could handle more than one target area, but not sure if they could handle more than two. If anyone has any info, I’d love to hear it.

In WW2 it was one target per FOO if you take the 2 minute time frame SPWW2 uses (applies to Finnish artillery). I'd allow golden spots to be used outside the rule, any number could be used because they had 4-5 word commands to fire at any of them by any soldier with a radio.

[seabolt]

(applies to Finnish artillery)

Must bite tongue. Must. Bite ...

I think Cross is trying to raise some good points, and would be so bold as to suggest that the current thinking on FOs is a scootch literal-minded. A couple of observations:

1. Yes, the 2 FO guys represented on screen are busy on the radio/field phone calling in a single fire mission, but the player is representing both their work and the work of maybe a dozen or more guys in the rear taking advantage of the prep work of literally hundreds of others. Pinpointing target hexes can be intrepreted as a somewhat abstract method of representing their decisions on sheaf size, range, etc.

2. In game, it does not take 30 minutes for scout A's sighting of enemy unit X to be conveyed to friendly units. It's instantly and perfectly communicated by telepathy. In game, it does not take hours to filter a change of plans from battalion HQ to squad leaders. Again, instant and perfect telepathy takes place. It is not entirely reasonable to judge FO performance, in game, by real-world standards when nothing else is held to those standards. If SP tanks get to scatter like caffeinated cockroaches at the first whistle of shell fire, it's only fair that SP FOs get to chase them at the speed of a cyborg kitty ...

-- 30 --

[Vesku]

Your point two means anything is ok even if it's gamey and that's what Cross is pointing at, FOO rule is good because it kills a gamey aspect of game.

[Walrus]

Hi
Good points all.

I would like to agree with Vesku.

The reason for the FOO rule, limited as it is, was to kill off gamey play.
One FOO (or none) scattering single tubes all around the map, chasing targets that no unit could actually see.
I have done that, I am sure we all have...
However, the idea was to start to limit the use of arty plotting to a 'more realistic' scenario, and in the process make the FOO a more important unit in the game.

The way it runs at the moment, it is easy for the opponent to keep an eye on the enemy arty routine.
When you are told the enemy has 2 FOO, you can easily keep watch on the fall of shells to make sure the targeting is being done according to the rules.
Some of the suggestions in this thread would be a nightmare to try and police, even though they are quite realistic.

Another point I would make is that anything is allowable by negotiation.
If you know your opponent well enough, you can tailor the FOO rule to suit the battle, either by using only part of the current FOO rule, or by adding to it.

I think Chris has come up with a good, workable, additional rule to improve the game we play.
I am happy to use it, or not, depending on the battle and my opponent.

Trying to make this game 'perfectly' realistic is a waste of time and effort IMO. It is and always will be just a game, with plenty of faults and small issues, but it is the best game of this type that I have yet played.
The fact that we can adjust plenty of variables and also negotiate with our opponents give us massive flexibility and the chance for a decent test of skills.

Hurrah!

Anyway...that's my 2 cents worth.
I'll be watching this thread with interest.
A good debate is worth it's weight in gold eh

Cheers

[Vesku]

Dude, debate doesn't weight anything, it's nothing like 1600 lbs of bird ... what ever.

To think of it, allowing free use of golden spots outside the FOO rule would be impossible to police, I'll withdraw my suggestion.

[seabolt]

Your point two means anything is ok even if it's gamey and that's what Cross is pointing at, FOO rule is good because it kills a gamey aspect of game.

I suppose that's a valid perspective. My take on the same thing is that, if the infantry and armor arms enjoy nonreal benefits x in this game, then a desire for balance would suggest that artillery should enjoy nonreal benefits roughly equivalent to x. Yes, I suppose it's "gamey." But what are you going to do? The whole thing is gamey: eye of God, leaching opfire to exploit IGOUGO, biggest infantry AT bangstick wins, snapshooting ATGMs.

Out of all of that, why is it that custom-tailored fire missions get called out? I would suggest that their one real sin is that they are a bit more irksome than the rest. They're not so much less realistic as more aggravating.

If that's the case, maybe there's a simpler solution: Ban FOs. Your A0 won't be able to chase squat with its 0.2 delay. The nerfstick will have spoken and Walrus' quite valid concerns about enforcability will be easily addressed.

-- 30 --

[Walrus]

so...I agree with you and you call me 1600 lbs of bird shite!
Bloody hell mate, it seems safer to disagree with you even when I agree!
Contrary viking!
BTW...it seems that walrus can get to 4500lbs...that's 2 tonne!

As for Gold spots...they are much better now in the recent versions.
Only one in a ME, no matter how many FOO.
I got 8 in an assault with 3 FOO recently...that seems fair.
You'd have mapped out the plots for an assault surely.
8 'stonk' points for 3 FOO and a bunch of Batt and co commanders over a 5 KM front doesn't seem too over the top.

However, I'm sure you'll disagree, and no doubt call me something to boo.... I'll save you the trouble and quote Kipling...
—the big, ugly, bloated, pimpled, fat-necked, long-tusked walrus of the North Pacific, who has no manners except when he is asleep" , except obviously he meant South Pacific :soap:

[Walrus]

Out of all of that, why is it that custom-tailored fire missions get called out?

because they are one of the few things we can change to 'help' push things a little more to the 'realistic' side.
The op-fire filter helps with that too.
Can't do much about the eye of god as the game is based on that.

I like the fact that you have to weigh up taking another 70 point FOO to get another mission. I have had the debate between having 2 or 3 a couple of times now...and i quite like that.
Of course in a big game like the current ET tourney, it's a moot point.

gold