Alternate Artillery Rule

[Strela]

Hi All,

Have been experimenting with this and finding that it does a good job at representing final protective fire etc. It also forces the attacker to think twice before he stacks multiple battalions in a hex.

What I am confused about is the rationale for the attack strength. The help file says that the attack factor is doubled and multiplied by the number of guns and the result is applied against all units in the hex. An artillery piece only fires once per phase.

Why would the factor be doubled? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the factor as is and double the number of guns and apply the result to all units in hex?

The current way suddenly makes guns much more effective against armour etc because a hard factor of 5 suddenly becomes 10.

Any one help with the rationale for the current rule?

Thanks,

David

[Glenn Saunders]

What I am confused about is the rationale for the attack strength. The help file says that the attack factor is doubled and multiplied by the number of guns and the result is applied against all units in the hex. An artillery piece only fires once per phase.

Actually David - what the docs say is:

"Alternative Indirect Fire Resolution – when this rule is selected, Indirect Fire of non-mortar, non-heavy weapon units is conducted under different rules. First, each such Indirect Fire is doubled in fire value, but the cost of firing is doubled. Second, such Indirect Fire is applied against all units in the target hex, proportional to their strength, instead of being applied against a single target unit."

Now I agree this is not well written and could lead to the confusion but I think what it means is simply that
- fire is condusted under DIFFERENT RULES -and different here means target density is taken into consideration as well, the hex is targeted and while one unit may be focused upon, collateral damage may occur to other units in the hex.
- also, there is only ONE SHOT instead of TWO but teh fire is doubled.

If there is a question setup up a test scn with a test shot - try it with and wuithout the rule using "ON MAP RESULTS" off, so you can see the values. I think you will find that the fire valuye is twice with the rule on.

FWIW- the ALT Fire rules were made early in the series to differenciate the combat in Normandy from the fighting in the steppe around Smolensk. The ground in Normandy was tight and firing at a target unit in a hex was not as precise in this environment.

During the third game of the series - Kharkov, we did a bunch of test to see if the ALT fire was stronger or weaker. IT is neither - the effect depends upon target density so it is neither stronger or weaker - rather it is DIFFERENT. As a result, using the rule on a scn will alter the effect on the vic levels - just as long as your aware of this effect.

Glenn

[Strela]

Glenn,

Thanks for the note and clarification.

I will do as you suggest and setup an on map results test. I will be very happy if I have interpreted the rules incorrectly! :)

Its an interesting rule as the 'hit all units in the hex' certainly forces the attacker to be more cautious.

If I see anything that is worth reporting I will put it into this thread.

David

[Fhil]

Hi David,

I have some experiences with this rule ON :)

I´m playing a Korsun Campaign game, and with my opponent we´re using this rule. I think that this rule suits the Eastern Front better, of course not all the scenarios or titles.

I play as a Russian in this game, and it is really a bit harder, but that´s how we wanted it to be, the power of Soviet armies was it´s masses, and with those rules it is more suitable. You know, we have also Direct Fire alt. ON, similar rule. It makes there that effect that a single smaller German unit can withstand the fighting and attacking even when few times outnumbered.

As I´m the one who is in the beginning with the attack on German lines, I must say - YES, you need to be more cautious:) If you are careful, than you won´t have any bigger problems..

I would also recommend this rule in Stalingrad campaign. I´ve played it once, without this rule, disaster. But with this rule, I mean, BOTH these rules, it would be something different. In Korsun, as a Russian player, after five days, I now know what it means when you are just not ready to immediately destroy the pocket. I also know that it must go step by step, with these rules German fighting superiority is really there. When reading few books about Stalingrad, I´ve learned that the Russians attacking from the north, knew that they don´t have enough power to meet the German Infantry Korps to the west of Don, don´t know exactly which one was it, XI. maybe? But in my game in Stalingrad it was crushed like nothing. I think that with this rule, it probably would be something different, and every Soviet player would avoid meeting this units, and better leave them to withdraw to Stalingrad.

So, just look at it and test it, it is a very interesting rule:)

Best Regards,
Filip

[Strela]

Hi Filip,

Of interest we are up to turn 24 in a Korsun Alt campaign using the rule exactly as you described. I agree with you that it actually works well for the eastern front - particularly for the German on the defensive.

It also stops the Russian from using regimental stacks to assault a single hex without the risk of heavy casualties.

The reason I was looking for clarification was that I was misinterpreting how it worked. I am doing some tests so I have a better idea.

My only concern with using it in current games is that the Soviet artillery tends to be in larger formations and these can be truely devastaing when firing upon the smaller German forces. On the flip side the smaller German artillery battalions are now much more effective.

A change to the PDT for Soviet artillery effectiveness may solve this problem though.

So of interest in our current Korsun campaign (day 3 is dawning) the Soviets have broken through on both fronts and the pocket will be formed (loosely!) during the day. Soviet casualties are just under 12K vs the German 4K. So a 3 to 1 ratio against the attacker. Compared to when we didn't use the rule casualties were more equivalent and the Russians were much more able to mass their attacks.

Thanks for your comments.

David

[bdtj1815]

I agree that it is best to use the Alt Direct and Indirect fire rules for eastern front games particularly. I am extensively testing a Minsk'44 scenario and they work. i have also tested changing the soviet artillery effectiveness in the pdt file. I have reduced it considerably, at present I am trying it at 25%, which also represents the lower fire control and responsiveness of the massed Soviet artillery. This means they carry a big punch in the Soviet phase but are much less effective as reactive fire in the German phase.

[Dog Soldier]

Strela,

You should find that the alt artillery fire OR will accrue more fatigue for a stack of soft target infantry companies that the default artillery fire resolution firing multiple times. I think this OR makes stacks of companies more brittle. The effect on large Russian regimental units is pronounced. In S41, K42, the larger density of the Russian infantry units coupled with the C and D quality can cause much frustration for the Russian player. This is due to the collateral damage Glenn speaks of in his post.

I recommend you will want to run some tests with mixed stacks of hard and soft targets. Look to see what happens when you have 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 ratios of hard to soft target factors. Be sure to test both targeting the soft and hard targets separately in the artillery fire dialog box. The differences are subtle, and I am not sure how it will work out in your K44 game with all the mods to the unit values. How these subtle differences play out over numerous turns in a CG of the kind your working on, I can not say.

Since your test game is advanced already, I think you have already noticed how this rule affects the German bunkers in the opening days of the Russian attack. My guess, from my experience with other games, is you saw less direct German casualties from Russian artillery attacks, but higher fatigue and less number of attacks to achieve disruption results against the defenders facilitating the follow up Russian assaults.

Best wishes for your mods.

Dog Soldier

[Strela]

Hi DS,

Agree that the above tests need to be done. Glenn was right, density is a significant factor. Of interest this appears to actually favours the German's due to their smaller unit size (company etc). I need further testing to validate.

In the current test game, the German bunkers have actually held out longer due to the inability for the Russians to mass in stacks without disproportionate losses. German fatigue has not been a problem, though there has been the standard surprise disruption every now and then. The bunkers on map appear to make units almost impervious to artillery so that is a factor also. The killer is when units are in the open.

The other key change that will impact any scenario is the VP impact. The attacker is taking a lot more casualties and we need to get further along to see if the additional losses are critical. It just shows that there are so many ways to tweak a scenario and they all have an impact that the designer has to account for.

David

[Dog Soldier]

[SNIP]
It just shows that there are so many ways to tweak a scenario and they all have an impact that the designer has to account for.

David

So very true David.

Dog Soldier

[Mr Grumpy]

[SNIP]
It just shows that there are so many ways to tweak a scenario and they all have an impact that the designer has to account for.

David

So very true David.

Dog Soldier

Having done a lot of testing i have seen the dramatic effect of a "small tweak" first hand and the larger the scenario the worse the problem often is.