FWWC & Alt Fire/Assault Resolution ORs

[Sir John Cope]

I recall reading somewhere that the reason the FWWC series does not include Alternative Indirect/Direct/Assault Resolution among its optional rules is that the series adopted "a version" of some (all?) of this set of ORs as part of its basic design.  

But, having searched the Design Notes, User and Main Program guides, this forum, and even the JTS product page, I am failing to locate the source for this recollection.  

Am I dreaming this, or can anyone confirm?

[Mr Grumpy]

Yes you are correct, these rules that are part of the optional rules list for the PzC series are on by default in the FWWC series.

This combined with high soft attack values for MG, Field gun and artillery units plus a much higher stacking allowance can make losses in FWWC very severe if you stack your battalions when in range of such weapons.

I have to admit I thought this was discussed in the designer notes, but a quick check and I cannot find any reference to the fact, however one big clue in the FWWC manual is in the firing section..........

"Fire Against Soft Targets
When a stack of soft targets is fired upon, then one randomly selected target in
that stack receives the majority of the fire while the other units in that stack
receive fire proportional to their strength relative to the total stack. The
exception to this is when only Field Guns (non Indirect Fire Artillery) fire on a
stack of soft targets, in which case Field Guns can choose their primary target
due to their high level of accuracy."

[Sir John Cope]

Yes you are correct, these rules that are part of the optional rules list for the PzC series are on by default in the FWWC series.

This combined with high soft attack values for MG, Field gun and artillery units plus a much higher stacking allowance can make losses in FWWC very severe if you stack your battalions when in range of such weapons.

I have to admit I thought this was discussed in the designer notes, but a quick check and I cannot find any reference to the fact, however one big clue in the FWWC manual is in the firing section..........

"Fire Against Soft Targets
When a stack of soft targets is fired upon, then one randomly selected target in
that stack receives the majority of the fire while the other units in that stack
receive fire proportional to their strength relative to the total stack. The
exception to this is when only Field Guns (non Indirect Fire Artillery) fire on a
stack of soft targets, in which case Field Guns can choose their primary target
due to their high level of accuracy."

Thanks, Mr. G.  I remember reading a more direct and clear statement, but that passage of the manual seems pretty clear. 

Trying to grasp the full implications of the alt-direct-fire rule, I see from your pinned OR summary that it scales "the standard firepower either up or down so that it is higher for large stacks and lower for small stacks", which jibes with the PzC manual's description that fire is "applied against all units in the target hex, proportional to their strength". 

The text you quote from the FWWC manual is a little more ambiguous on this point: is fire not scaled by size for the targeted unit but is scaled for other units in the hex? And then there is the field arty exception.

I guess it works both ways? You point out that scaling fire effect by size increases impact for densely packed hexes, so that a hex stacked deep can expect to take heavier casualties than would be the case under standard PzC rules.  But it looks like the opposite is also true: a hex occupied by a single small unit can expect fewer casualties than under PzC standard rules?

[Green]

I guess it works both ways? You point out that scaling fire effect by size increases impact for densely packed hexes, so that a hex stacked deep can expect to take heavier casualties than would be the case under standard PzC rules.  But it looks like the opposite is also true: a hex occupied by a single small unit can expect fewer casualties than under PzC standard rules?

I think there is a good chance that FWWC and PzC are not identical in terms of the Alt Fire rules and I can only comment on PzC.

In PzC the point at which the Alt and non-Alt fire rules produce equivalent firepower is at one-sixth of maximum stacking. Firepower is scaled up for stacking above this and scaled down below this. The scaling is linear. So firepower approaches zero as stacking approaches zero and it is multiplied by six at maximum stacking.

Something different may apply in FWWC but it may be that the concept is similar.

[Mr Grumpy]

When we were testing F14 many years ago I was told by the designer that we were using a modified version of the Alternate fire rules, unfortunately I didn't ask for detail on what the differences between PzC and FWWC where.

However I suspect the differences are not huge, if you are used to the Alt fire rules in PzC it should not seem a jump to play FWWC using them and vice versa.

Next time I speak to him I will ask for specifics and post his explanation on this thread. 

[Sir John Cope]

Thanks to you both for taking the time to reply.

[Mr Grumpy]

I recall reading somewhere that the reason the FWWC series does not include Alternative Indirect/Direct/Assault Resolution among its optional rules is that the series adopted "a version" of some (all?) of this set of ORs as part of its basic design.  

But, having searched the Design Notes, User and Main Program guides, this forum, and even the JTS product page, I am failing to locate the source for this recollection.  

Am I dreaming this, or can anyone confirm?

This is the answer I received from the designer on this point..........

Mostly. The difference is that you are unable to select the primary target for direct fire attacks like you can with the rules on in PzC series, unless the firing unit is a field gun.

I also confirmed that the Alternate assault rule is being used by default, just in case that was not clear either.

[Sir John Cope]

I recall reading somewhere that the reason the FWWC series does not include Alternative Indirect/Direct/Assault Resolution among its optional rules is that the series adopted "a version" of some (all?) of this set of ORs as part of its basic design.  

But, having searched the Design Notes, User and Main Program guides, this forum, and even the JTS product page, I am failing to locate the source for this recollection.  

Am I dreaming this, or can anyone confirm?

This is the answer I received from the designer on this point..........

Mostly. The difference is that you are unable to select the primary target for direct fire attacks like you can with the rules on in PzC series, unless the firing unit is a field gun.

I also confirmed that the Alternate assault rule is being used by default, just in case that was not clear either.

That clarifies the matter - thanks very much for pursuing this, Mr. G.