Artillery Spotting & Changes

K K Rossokolski · 01-20-2009, 09:04 AM,

A fascinating discussion. I think there is an issue yet to be considered, which is the hierarchical nature of military command, and the place within that hierarchy (some manifestation of which is in place for ANY operation) of different levels of artillery ...platoon level small mortars to Corps or Army level superheavy stuff. I use the term artillery in the CS useage.

CS simulates all levels of warfare from platoon to Theatre. What it cannot do (in practice) is simulate all levels of command in any given Scenario. A team can actually simulate different command levels, but normally only the two highest. Imagine a corps level team game split into individual companies!! A little unwieldy, perhaps!! So for the majority of games played, two individuals act as and at all levels of command. No time is lost due to the need to communicate up, down and/or sideways. 2nd Lieutenant Buggerlugs has instant access to the Army Commanders' 8" Howitzers without the need to ask nicely. And he can use the 105s of the adjoining Division without so much as a by-your-leave. In the real world, these matters take time, dependant on many factors, including the hierarchical level of arty control, which might normally be delegated as far downwards as the Command deems proper
In a crude way...the one turn delay.... CS tries to simulate this, but the arty almost invariably arrives as requested and absolutely on the (spotted) targets.

Should the arty arrangements be changed? I don't know. I am totally in favour of giving commanders eyes and ears, as their present inability flies in the face of common sense. There might be an argument in adding some randomness to higher level arty commands. I agree that the addition of special spotter units is absolutely unnecessary (although the little spotter aeroplanes are fine). If possible, any change should be optional, and the arty ammo supply would be more realistically treated as an issue separate from SAA.

Alfons de Palfons Wrote:That such a change should be an educated, meaningful one, speaks for itself. I have trust that this will be case.
Huib

I just hope, Huib, that ALL future changes will meet this test. The continuing presence of the imbecile non-flying long range antigravity bomb projecting airfield "bombers" and the silly bathtub "navy" do not engender full confidence.

01-20-2009, 09:12 AM,

Quote - 'Wow! It is this type of reply that really turns me off to the Blitz forums.'

My infrequent 'attacks' as you put it are, originally, statements that many people are probably put off bothering to enter any debate because of the way debaters get spoken to. Yet another person makes the same comment.
I'm in no way making personal attacks on anyone, just highlighting what is going on. As for entering the debate, no point anymore, as many people have found out.
regards
Peter

Hawk Kriegsman · 01-20-2009, 09:22 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:CS simulates all levels of warfare from platoon to Theatre.

Actually, originally it was never really intended to do the large scenarios.

Quote:What it cannot do (in practice) is simulate all levels of command in any given Scenario.

Very few wargames can do this. If you have one player playing a side he is all levels of command.

Quote:In a crude way...the one turn delay.... CS tries to simulate this, but the arty almost invariably arrives as requested and absolutely on the (spotted) targets.

Actually the artillery going low on ammo also simulates the various artillery snafu's you mentioned. I believe the original manuals even mention this fact.

As for arriving on target you need to keep in mind that the spotting rounds, adjustment and fire for effect all take place during a 6 minutes (or more depending on your belief). Its an abstract process.

Quote:Should the arty arrangements be changed? I don't know.

Changed? I am not so sure. Tweaked? Yes probably.

Quote:I am totally in favour of giving commanders eyes and ears, as their present inability flies in the face of common sense.

Agreed.

Quote:There might be an argument in adding some randomness to higher level arty commands.

Not so sure about that. If you are playing a larger scenario then you are the higher level command. Perhaps the artillery's cost to fire and firepowers take into account some of your concerns.

Quote:If possible, any change should be optional, and the arty ammo supply would be more realistically treated as an issue separate from SAA.

Agreed that things should be made optional.

Thanx!

Hawk

umbro · 01-20-2009, 09:28 AM,

I wonder if the original designers didn't reduce the effectiveness of artillery knowing that it was very flexible in being called in...

A quick check seems to indicate that one thing that they did not do was reduce the effectiveness due to doctrine.

umbro

K K Rossokolski · 01-20-2009, 09:47 AM,

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:As for arriving on target you need to keep in mind that the spotting rounds, adjustment and fire for effect all take place during a 6 minutes (or more depending on your belief). Its an abstract process.

Erik...artillery fire may be lots of things, but I don't recall it as being very abstract!

Herr Straße Laufer · 01-20-2009, 11:30 AM,

glint Wrote:Quote - 'Wow! It is this type of reply that really turns me off to the Blitz forums.'

My infrequent 'attacks' as you put it are, originally, statements that many people are probably put off bothering to enter any debate because of the way debaters get spoken to. Yet another person makes the same comment.
I'm in no way making personal attacks on anyone, just highlighting what is going on. As for entering the debate, no point anymore, as many people have found out.
regards
Peter

This poster needs to get over himself and begin to enter the discussion? :chin:
If you cannot see the personal attacks that you make but, only the ones that you feel others are making, through your "highlighting", maybe you should stop highlighting and bring something within the discussion to the table? :eek1:

Apparently you do like the way artillery is currently done?
Or, would you like the changes that are being discussed at Matrix?

RR

FM WarB · 01-20-2009, 01:12 PM,

The game may or may not change regarding artillery.
We may or may not like changes to this facet of the game.

Discussion and suggestions about change, and advice from experts (even if they do not want change) can help to make the change better, before it happens.

Hawk Kriegsman · 01-20-2009, 09:20 PM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:Erik...artillery fire may be lots of things, but I don't recall it as being very abstract!

Everything that goes into a fire mission's fire for effect (calling in the mission, spotting rounds, adjustment of spotting rounds) is handled abstractly.

All we see is the fire for effect application.

Thanx!

Hawk

Huib Versloot · 01-21-2009, 01:55 AM,

K K Rossokolski Wrote:
Alfons de Palfons Wrote:That such a change should be an educated, meaningful one, speaks for itself. I have trust that this will be case.
Huib

I just hope, Huib, that ALL future changes will meet this test. The continuing presence of the imbecile non-flying long range antigravity bomb projecting airfield "bombers" and the silly bathtub "navy" do not engender full confidence.

It will. A change on arty anyway will immediately affect the new scenarios for which I really need a change in the artillery engine. I would already be happy if we could have a separate ammo level. If it is technically possible to have more improvements, even better. It HAS to be good before implemented otherwise my new scenarios won't be good which would be unacceptable to me.
Furthermore Umbro has also joined the beta brig. I have a lot of confidence in his analysis of the current system and how it might be improved. As far as ALL other changes are concerned. I think there won't be many. Maybe some tweaks on existing changes, some map editor enhancements.

Chuck10mtn · 01-21-2009, 07:11 AM,

Hi All,
I just have to jump in here. This GAME was never intended to be a simulation of WWII. Lets stop trying to get there. As I've said before soon it will be spotting units, then special units that spot with a radio symbol to desinate the spotter. Then he will need a jeep, truck. or halftrack to travel in. Does this vehicle have offensive or defensive capabilities. Then it will be the whole halftrack debate again. I'm not saying it can't be fixed up but as always when will it stop.
One problem I see is as the game moves forward it risks losing the people who have played it the longest. Its a game and the word game implies that there is luck, wonder and even sometimes true amazement as to the results. it all goes on a dice roll, and yes we all roll snake-eyes sometimes. I think we just have to watch moving foward and risk making most of the scenarios obsolete because of changes. The amount of new scenarios being created will not keep up with the changes that are being discussed here. For every action there is a opposite and equil re-action,so use caution when moving ahead with quick easy changes that SEEM to have no affect on play.
I was going to say my .02 but after looking at it, just my $.25 worth

Chuck