Realistic Artillery Management - FOO Rule

[Imp]

Here here Weasel go & dable then someone post a poll

My system is quite simple the long winded rules are to stop people "misenterpreting" if used in tourneys but between consenting players just use.

1) AO May only call in a fire mission if you have no FOOs
2) Only FOOs & AO may call in a fire mission
3) Each FOO has 1 fire mission consisting of a max of 1-3 plots.
When you end your turn these plots must all be within 2 hexes of each other or less.
4) All guns in a battery must be used in the fire mission.
5) The fire mission may be made up of any number of batteries & you may add or cancel them at any time.
6) To call in a new fire mission you must first cancel all plots in the old Fire mission.
7) Fire missions can be shifted so long as 3) applies

This does mean if call in 2 mortar sections consisting of 2 mortars each you can still spread over 3 plots. Or 4 if you want to try 4 as the base allowed.

[Narwan]

I've managed to keep quiet so far but I guess I'll throw in my objections to the FOO rule now.

As it currently stands the rule is a 'dumbed' down rule. That means its not realistic but a simplified version of 'reality'. That is also what the game itself does, it simplifies reality to manageable proportions. So the question is whether the dumbed down FOO rule is significantly less unrealistic than what's already in the game and if so, is it worth the extra hassle?
In my opinion it's roughly in the same ball park of unrealism. So I don't bother with it.

A couple of things should IMO always be possible: call arty with the A0; call arty with company commanders (and for some nations/years platoon commanders too); fire a battery in a "sheaf" (ie not all at the same hex but roughly the same area); use gold spots for quick response fire (in case you use a one mission per spotter rule that should be a second allowed). Try to see who gets to call what where is impossible considering rounds will drift and create 'odd' patterns for the one receiving the incoming. Way to much hassle to bother with policing.

The A0 should always be able to call arty for the very simple reason it represents the battallion staff. Seabolt very rightly pointed out that the game basically only shows the fighting elements of your forces and not the loads of support forces behind it who make it all possible. The batt HQ should be able to call down arty, it's one of their main jobs to determine who gets which support!
What also seems to be missed by everyone is types of fire missions. It seems there's only speak of missions against 'observed' targets. But what about interdiction fire missions? Counter battery fire missions? Area denial fire missions? All misisons where you're most likely not to have a LOS to. All there's needed is to give coordinates to an arty officer and tell him what to fire at it for how long. No adjusting by an observer etc and no FO needed. Typically a job for a battallion HQ flunky. Should be no problem giving orders for multiple missions of the kind in a single turn. The game deals with the ability of players to shift nonetheless by having the rounds scatter all over the place. Balances out just fine IMO.

Then there's the FO himself. He's expensive. Part of it is because he can do so much. Limit his abilities by extra rules and a price drop seems appropriate too.

There are certainly aspects that could be tweaked (and some likely will in upcoming versions of the game) but on the whole I just accept it as one of the many things unrealistic about the game.


Narwan

[Weasel]

I modified the FOO rule (guideline) to include and not include the shift factor.

[seabolt]

I'm with you, Narwan, but it would be nice to have a compromise rule for playing those who do object to the FO status quo. I like Cross' ideas for that purpose, with the tweaks that I suggested.

Chris' original rules likely are as realistic as this game can get, and it's obvious that a ton of thought went into them. But I can't seem to use them without breaking them every time my attention wanders off.* Plus, when a round scatters off and hits something useful, it can leave a little lingering cloud of suspicion. I like to avoid that, personally.

That said, if I ever get around to playing H2H with C&C on, I'll be suggesting the full Weasel treatment. The C&C nerfs the infantry and armor so much that it's almost mandatory to put the brakes on that quickfiring H2H artillery.

* Regular readers of this board probably realize that's about 90% of the time.

-- 30 --

[Weasel]

So for those of you who are creating/modifying the FOO rule as it stands, the following must occur before it will be considered for posting (sticking) on the important thread area:

1. the rule must be play tested at least 20 games
2. feedback must be provided from players other then the creator as to their view of the rule
3. the new rule must be compared against the existing rule; thus you must play both sets and players must report on both (so no "I never tried your rule, but I don't like it so I am doing this and it is better").

The current rule, as stated, was play tested by about 8 or 10 players each playing at least 5 games with the rule and it's modifications.

Now with the above said, you are fully entitled to use whatever FOO rules you like, AS LONG AS BOTH PLAYERS AGREE before game start. If you state, "I want to use the FOO rule" you will be refering to the posted one on the board. If you want to use YOUR rule, you must clearly state so before the game start (I WANT TO USE MY FOO RULES).

[Weasel]

Then there's the FO himself. He's expensive. Part of it is because he can do so much. Limit his abilities by extra rules and a price drop seems appropriate too.


Narwan

Actually the price is just fine. It makes the FOO a special unit that must be protected, but it also prevents players from migrating from only buying 1 FOO as in games without the rule, to companies of them.

I have found that the average number of FOOs in a medium game is about 3. Smaller games will see 2 and larger 5 or 6. A very nice change from 1 FOO shooting up the map. I have also noticed that when a player under buys FOOs (only buys 1 lets say) that he quickly realizes how restricting this is and does not show up to the fight again without a few more (right Vesku?).

So no changes to value required.

[Vesku]

Then there's the FO himself. He's expensive. Part of it is because he can do so much. Limit his abilities by extra rules and a price drop seems appropriate too.


Narwan

I have also noticed that when a player under buys FOOs (only buys 1 lets say) that he quickly realizes how restricting this is and does not show up to the fight again without a few more (right Vesku?).

So no changes to value required.

You are correct Chris, I often notice that I've purchased one too few FOOs. I think that with the rule FOOs are even more invaluable because without enough them you can't use your arty effectively.

[Narwan]

Actually the price is just fine. It makes the FOO a special unit that must be protected, but it also prevents players from migrating from only buying 1 FOO as in games without the rule, to companies of them.

I have found that the average number of FOOs in a medium game is about 3. Smaller games will see 2 and larger 5 or 6. A very nice change from 1 FOO shooting up the map. I have also noticed that when a player under buys FOOs (only buys 1 lets say) that he quickly realizes how restricting this is and does not show up to the fight again without a few more (right Vesku?).

So no changes to value required.

That's just a matter of opinion. Under the FO rule all a FO unit does is allow a single hex to be under fire. And not even one hex per turn as it take several turns for a new mission to be plotted. The units actually firing have their ammo reflected in their costs so theirs no need to have that attributed to the FO. So 70+ is a justified cost for this very limited ability? I think not.
I doubt a player will buy companies of them if the cost will be brought down.

What I've also noticed in the thread is the tendency to come up with examples to justify and not examples to test. Let's test the alleged 'realism' of the FO rule with an example shall we?
It's 1938 in central China. You're the commander of a chinese infantry battallion. Your artillery assets are limited to 6 tubes of light/medium mortars and 4 tubes of light howitzers. What's worse is that you've got only two set's of radio's in your command. One you keep, the other goes to the commander of you (company size) scratch force of tankettes and (armed) trucks. Each of the three infantry companies gets two tubes of mortars attached to them and the light howtzers are under your direct control. FO's? You've never even heard of the term let alone have any.
So now you have three companies of infantry each advancing on their own. If they run into trouble they can use the two mortars to deal with it. If it's big trouble they can send back a runner and request fire from the howitzer battery.
Sounds to me like a pretty 'realistic' picture. But how would it work with the FO rule? For one, the company commanders can't use their attached mortars when they need them as they are not allowed to call missions under the FO rule. The A0 has to do that. That's the guy they have to send a runner to to inform him what's happening. He than has to send back a runner to give the go ahead to fire. But wait, not one runner shows up at HQ but three! Each of the three companies want's permission to fire their mortars! And the A0 is allowed only one mission, which oh which runner to choose to send back?!
At this point it's getting pretty silly, too silly for my taste. Any rule where a formation commander can't call for missions for units under his command is a broken rule in my book. That goes for company commanders with arty assets attached but also for platoon commander if they have a arty unit attached to them (certain german platoons have a mortar attached to the platoon for example).

Let's continue with the example I pictured above; one of the companies runs into serious opposition and needs the howitzers to chase away the enemy from their positions. A runner gets send to HQ, HQ gets in touch with the battery commander (let's say there's a landline between HQ and battery), they discuss the fire mission, the mission gets plotted, a runner send back to the company commander to tell him what to expect, now the cie commander wants to coordinate with the battary so he can attack as soon as they end their fire, the runner goes back, HQ decides a green flare will go up when the last volley is about to be fired, the cie commander is happy with that (it's a clear day) and off they go.
Now how much time would that take to arrange? Let's say the runner has to go 2 km each trip. Ten turns? twenty turns? thirty turns? What player would want to wait for that? What the game does is condense the realworld coordination into a reasonable time for the game to keep it playable. And not just for artillery. Limit artillery effectiveness and the other elements get relatively more powerful. Artillery is already more limited and this would unbalance it further. I think Seabolt made the remark that it becomes a real effort to plot a barrage but it is real easy for the receiver to get his units out from under it (much easier than in reality). It don't think that's a way we should want to go.

Narwan

[Vesku]

And who would ever use FOO rule in such a battle?

[Narwan]

And who would ever use FOO rule in such a battle?

What's that supposed to mean? There's a list somewhere of which battles do and which don't qualify? I haven't seen it. Or does the rule that an A0 can't call arty only apply to more modern or bigger games (you know, games where the AO represents an even greater staff with more sophisticated equipment).

Your remark illustrates my objection perfectly. Realworld examples that don't fit the mold get rationalised out.
Want another example? Here's one:

Infantry cie positioned around a small town, the three 60mm tubes attached to it are located on the hill behind it and can see the open field between the town and the woods where the enemy positions are. The enemy attacks and starts crossing the open field. The company commander can't order his 60mm's to start a barrage in the open field, nor can the arty unit do so on it's own. Has to be an observer unit. But he's busy plotting the 105mm battery just behind the woods to silence the enemy mortars there that have started firing to support the attack. ifferent hex so he can't also plot the fire against the infantry inthe field. In other words, the 60mm's can't fire at the infantry in the open with indirect fire. How silly is that?
But say you'll allow arty to fire on units they can see themselves and the following happens; the enemy arty starts a few fires in town and soon the view is obstructed due to smoke, the 60mm unit doesn't have LOS more. The cie commander does and he has a radio link to his 60mm's. Can't adjust the fire though, he's not allowed under the rule. More silliness.

I can keep coming up with examples. Point is that the FO rule 'solves' one problem but creates others. It's not more realistic.

Narwan