Target density in WW1

[Liebchen]

I recall learning, when the WW1 was new, that (in contrast to PzC) units would suffer losses proportional to their unit density, i.e. packing them in shoulder-to-shoulder would lead to disastrous results.

Experience bears this out.

But I can't find any reference to it in the actual rules.

[Mr Grumpy]

I thought this was covered in the FWWC notes section, but a quick scan of the notes did not reveal any reference to how the fire mechanics work in detail, I am guessing the notes discuss the FWWC series in isolation and don't refer to how this series differs from Panzer Campaigns? Of course, if you had never played PzC then you would not be aware the fire results in regard to unit stacking/density could be so different.

There are two factors that Panzer Campaigns players would note that gives us some clues, first in the optional rules there is no Alternate Direct fire rule option, this is because the FWWC titles use this rules fire mechanics by default and second on page 33 of the rules in the "Fire against Soft Targets" section it states.....

"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."

I know for a fact that this is not exactly the same mechanics as the PzC Alt Direct Fire rule as stated in the PzC manual, but the effects are so similar I doubt anyone playing the two series would notice the difference.

Having these fire effects on by default with no option to use the PzC fire rules was a work of genius by the designer, as it forces any player wishing to be successful playing the various FWWC titles to use the correct tactics of the era or suffer dire consequences. 

[Liebchen]

Having these fire effects on by default with no option to use the PzC fire rules was a work of genius by the designer, as it forces any player wishing to be successful playing the various FWWC titles to use the correct tactics of the era or suffer dire consequences. 

Exactly, right?

I was thinking about the optionals, but I can't find the density rule there, either.

On another, but related note (PzC v. WW1): The user interface

In WW1 we learn that the program can allow one to click on an entire stack and say fire, and if one of them happens to be an HQ then it just ignores that and goes ahead and processes the fire order with the units that are eligible.

So why can't the program operate the same with respect to, say, broken units or units without MPs left, or MG units in T-mode? Can't the program be coded to treat those as it does HQs?

And another thing (I've been enjoying a lot of WW1 lately): Whether we fire MGs or field guns, they affect the target stack in the same manner. When we assign an MG unit to fire, the program says, "Yes, Sir" and conducts the fire. But when we give a field gun the same command on the same hex, it asks us to specify which unit - and promptly ignores the distinction.

So if the program can handle the process of MG file seamlessly, why can't the guns be given the same treatment?

Just my $0.06.

[Ricky B]

For the artillery fire, that is covered in the manual. Both unit types fire at the entire stack, but with one unit in the stack being primary and taking the highest firepower. The MG primary target is randomly selected while the artillery gets to choose its target "due to its accuracy".

[Liebchen]

For the artillery fire, that is covered in the manual. Both unit types fire at the entire stack, but with one unit in the stack being primary and taking the highest firepower. The MG primary target is randomly selected while the artillery gets to choose its target "due to its accuracy".

Ah, so. It doesn't fire at your chosen target precisely, more like a bit sloppily.

Thank you.