firing at hex with multiple targets

[Otto von Blotto]

I do have a couple of concerns about this, I'm not ruling it out altogether as a possible way forwards as the idea does have some merits but I would like to know how you would deal with.

a) disruptions and retreats would that effect all of a type as well or just the single unit attacked.?
b) sometimes I like to concentrate fire on a particular unit in a hex, to whittle them down, say if one is on 6 strength and another on 2 or 3 I would sometimes like all the hits to come from the 6 strength unit and not be spread how could I still do this.?
c) tanks and hard targets, how will the rule deal with facing, not all armor targets in a hex is all facing in the same direction ?

Edit one extra, again would they have to be the exactly the same unit what if a panther and a tiger were in the same hex ?

[PawelM]

I do have a couple of concerns about this, I'm not ruling it out altogether as a possible way forwards as the idea does have some merits but I would like to know how you would deal with.

a) disruptions and retreats would that effect all of a type as well or just the single unit attacked.?
b) sometimes I like to concentrate fire on a particular unit in a hex, to whittle them down, say if one is on 6 strength and another on 2 or 3 I would sometimes like all the hits to come from the 6 strength unit and not be spread how could I still do this.?
c) tanks and hard targets, how will the rule deal with facing, not all armor targets in a hex is all facing in the same direction ?

Edit one extra, again would they have to be the exactly the same unit what if a panther and a tiger were in the same hex ?

Very valid points. So as I understand the direct fire works that there is a rool of dice for evey SP of firing unit at a given attack:defence ratio.

So if you were to consider my proposal and consider unit A of 3sp firing at a hex with multiple platoons. Let's say AT firing at hex with PzVI pzV and PzIV platoon. We can have a generic selection of tanks or decide for attacker to be able to choose light medium or heavy tanks a a target. Say I select medium tanks so PzIVs are my target. This would result in 3 dice rolls. At the if say by dice roll number two (i.e. still one SP to fire), the target is eliminated one could still this extra gun would "find a new target" at random select closest unit matchin the criterion originally slecte, Say pzV. Teh atack:defense ratio for this 1SP which "has not fired" yet is recalculated for a new unit type ( at this point armour facing can be included in selection of three corresponding defence coefficient)

Such a algorithm would allow not to waste "firing SPs" if a target number 1 was 1Sp and killed at first dice roll. Then it is fair to assume other ramaining two AT guns (i.e. two SPs) could fire at other target in the same hex.This could go without a new firing action required as the secondary target is in the same firing permieter (hex).

Does is sound plausible?

[PawelM]

Is this to liberal?
I suppose if adding targeting by unit type rather is too much, what everyone thinks of doing something about disparity in losess that can be inflicted by single direct fire action i described above? Anyone agrees some fix would be welcome by majority fellow players. Or perhaps i am the only one feeling changes can improve the game engine.

[Kool Kat]

Is this to liberal?
I suppose if adding targeting by unit type rather is too much, what everyone thinks of doing something about disparity in losess that can be inflicted by single direct fire action i described above? Anyone agrees some fix would be welcome by majority fellow players. Or perhaps i am the only one feeling changes can improve the game engine.

You raise an interesting proposal? :chin:

For me, with any possible change to the game engine... and your proposal would fundamentally change how direct fire is applied to enemy units... I always ask the following:

* How does it impact game play?
* Is it needed? Or is it a "nice to have" change?
* Is it a "high" priority on the list of other 1.05 patch requests?
* Are players willing to give up other proposed changes to accommodate this proposal?

I would also caution against making a statement such as "...by majority fellow players..." since the folks who read and respond to Blitz threads represent a "minority" and not a "majority" view of CS players.

Finally, for me, I welcome "change" that improves the CS game engine... as long as that change is thought out carefully... is needed.... thoroughly play tested... and implemented and deployed in a careful and thoughtful manner. :smoke:

[PawelM]

KK,
The purpose of this thread was to put my idea for discussion to see if anyone else agrees this would improve the game.

I peronally believe a change along the line i proposed would be good, i.e. Not only a nice to have thing. I wantde to put it up for discussion to see if there was anyone who would welcome such a modification. I presented more of an outline how I would envisage this working. If there is enough positive feedback details could be discussed. If the idea based on a general proposal does not get any support then this discussion and thread will go into oblivion shortly and there is no point starting to go too muxh into more detailed aspects of how to implement it.

Initial thought which triggered me considering this was the direct fire effect which i treid describing in my first posts. I would like to see this issue adressed somehow. If there are other proposals I would be keen to hear them, i.e. This is the whole point I started this thread in the first place.

As for majority players think i meant majority at the blitz. I realize there is loads of gamers who never heard of the blitz. But lets not get distracted form main topic.

[PawelM]

Is this to liberal?
I suppose if adding targeting by unit type rather is too much, what everyone thinks of doing something about disparity in losess that can be inflicted by single direct fire action i described above? Anyone agrees some fix would be welcome by majority fellow players. Or perhaps i am the only one feeling changes can improve the game engine.

You raise an interesting proposal? :chin:

For me, with any possible change to the game engine... and your proposal would fundamentally change how direct fire is applied to enemy units... I always ask the following:

* How does it impact game play?
* Is it needed? Or is it a "nice to have" change?
* Is it a "high" priority on the list of other 1.05 patch requests?
* Are players willing to give up other proposed changes to accommodate this proposal?

I would also caution against making a statement such as "...by majority fellow players..." since the folks who read and respond to Blitz threads represent a "minority" and not a "majority" view of CS players.

Finally, for me, I welcome "change" that improves the CS game engine... as long as that change is thought out carefully... is needed.... thoroughly play tested... and implemented and deployed in a careful and thoughtful manner. :smoke:

I understand the implications are significant, therefore I started a discussion. I do not think at this stage it is even worth considering it for implementation with any update yet.

I would like to see more people confirm this is the way they would want to see direct fire to work. If I am only odd one out of the bunch feeling this is the way to go, then there is not much point dwelling on too much detail, wouldn't you agree.

I am for discussing the details and also am keen to hear proposals from others.
However for now, there is not as many people involved in the discussion (i.e. less than I hoped for), which suggests to me there is not enough interest in proposed changes to direct fire with multiple units etc.

Your comments are much appreciated. I would like to have more input from other as I did not have this proposal completely covered and I was hoping other would join in to shape a potential proposal based on the outline I proposed as a starting point.

:bow:

[PawelM]

The bottom line is, at the moment when I use direct fire at 3:1 and above ratio of attack:defence, I can eliminate a unit of 2SP with one fire action used up by my firing unit. However if there are two units in the hex with 1SP each. I need two fire actions tow eliminate the same 2SP. This is plain silly to me and should be addressed.

I proposed my way forward, but I am interested to seeother ideas on fixing this.

[Jason Petho]

The bottom line is, at the moment when I use direct fire at 3:1 and above ratio of attack:defence, I can eliminate a unit of 2SP with one fire action used up by my firing unit. However if there are two units in the hex with 1SP each. I need two fire actions tow eliminate the same 2SP. This is plain silly to me and should be addressed.

I would disagree.

You have a 15% chance of causing a 2SP loss at 3:1 odds, which also means you have a 85% chance of not performing the same loss.

You have a 25% chance of causing a 1SP loss at 3:1 odds.

I would think this is a tactical advantage for the player with the two platoons versus the one platoon. Where your platoon of tanks maybe operating in formation somewhere in the hexagon, the opposing two platoons may be operating in completely different locations within their hex - giving them a tactical advantage.

Thinking outside the box, you may be required to target one at a time because your platoon can only see of those opposing platoons at any given time during the course of the combat in the course of a turn.

Jason Petho

[PawelM]

Jason,

What you ay implies that a single platoon cannot assume a formation 2 platoons could. Certainly if number of tanks is identical, what stop a single platoon from doing exactly what 2 platoons could.


for instance if the two platoons are reduced to 1sp ( 1 tank each), what advantage can they gain vs a single platoon with 2SP? Surely it is pssible to mimic the same formation as in the former case.

I think what you say is valid under assumption all units in the platoon are tightly coupled and are not a single subunit of a platoon represented by 1SP in the game cannot be positioned as far or in a free manner with regard to the main portion of a platoon as a completely different platoon could be.
For instance, hex is 250m so 2 tanks could be 250m apart within the hex only if they belong to different platoon?so they cannot make it more difiicult to the enemy to target them as otherwise 2 platoons coul?

would't you agree ?

[PawelM]

Another point is that if we take a battery of ATs of 3SP (I am assuming each point represents 1 gun), one could argue that not all guns have to target the same platoon, i.e. fire in the same direction. Especially if we have two platoons with reduced to 1 tank targeted. Why cannot 1 gun target a tank from other platoon?

Not to mistake what it is not purely the damage induced in case of such a split, but also the fact that it will cost the attacker double the action points as is in the game.

I think this is an interesting point and I hoping ther will be more people here willing to take up the discussion.

I think there is no ideal solution, but IMHO as it is is ceratinly giving too much of an advantage for partial strength plattons vs a single one with equivalent strength.

---

You have a 15% chance of causing a 2SP loss at 3:1 odds, which also means you have a 85% chance of not performing the same loss.

You have a 25% chance of causing a 1SP loss at 3:1 odds.

Correct on the chances. But if we take one platoon of 2 tanks the attacker has 15% chance of eliminating it at a cost of a single fire in the game. In the case of 2 platoons of 1 tank each it is impossible to achieve with a single fire action. One has to "pay" double price in action points. Effectively my understanding is that say battery of say 3 AT guns will need to use up more ammo to kill two tanks just because they happen to be from different platoons (which were so battered before that now decided to join forces).