The problem is not the assault rule

[umbro]

I am not sure that making HT's one of a smaller group of spotting type units will support historical gameplay. I see it where HTs, after dropping off their infantry, will race all over the place (including deep strikes around/behind the lines) looking for juicy artillery targets. They'll be everywhere but near their related infantry which can spot for itself somewhat.

Agreed, which is why HTs should be worth 6VPs (or more) per SP, but that is a different debate.

As far as incorporating nationality differences into the arty routines. The best suggestion I saw so far was Huib's where ammo level would be split out into two numbers, one for artillery and one for regular ammo. That way a scenario designer could set the arty level at something fairly low, say 20-30%, for the Soviet side without totally messing with the regular soviet troops combat effectiveness. They'd still the capability to call in more indirect fire than historically, but the overall effect of Soviet artillery would be lessened.

This is a definite must for the future, and is a decent abstract for doctrine flexibility.

Perhaps we should forget about existing scenarios. They can be played with other optional rules (provided that the changes are programmed in such a way) until someone adjusts them. Virtually every change to the game will affect old scenarios. That should not be a "show stopper".

I agree that it should not be a show stopper, but it is tough to ignore the vast majority of existing scenarios (we have 2000 or so in the database) especially if we can formulate a solution that works for them as well.

New is good, but there is a baby in that bathwater!

...http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html
General overview of Doctrine and FO make up per nationality.
...

Excellent synopsis, with sources!

umbro