experimental rules in MBT

[Grumbler]

I still think that once the FO has made the call, spotting should be turned over to local control. As far as concetrating arty, if you don't do that, you will get beat, which should be an incentive of it's own, I would like this better if it was 1 target, 1 battery instead of 1 target, 1 FO, whih is how I undersatnd your proposed rule change. I do that anyway, just because it's good play. Assuming one has an out-of-the-box view of the word 'target'. In a game I'm playing now, my opponent has moved up lots of Sagger teams into several treelines. So I consider the tree line a 'target, since I havn't actually spotted any of those %$#@##$$%* Saggers.
I this case I have tasked a battery of SP mortars with suppressing the tree line on the most critical part of the map. I have requested smoke elsewhere, just to keep him guessing. After my suppression fire lands, I will use a zero scout to walk the mortars along the tree line. A couple of turns of that and I'll try to work a mech platoon in to clear the treeline.
Straightforward tactics, would I still be able to do this sort of thing under the propese rule change?

[retired from gaming]

I dont care about that rule to much, as I play purchase games only on rare occassions. But I dont understand one very important thing - why FO has to be there until all rounds land ? I never was in the army and dont claim to be an expert, but if I just use common sense and bit of imagination it goes like that :
I am a battle commander and have one FO (or to be more precise - artylery observer, cause he is with me not at the front line, and thats what I reckon was/is in RL based on everything I read/watch). I have an area I want to be covered with arty barrage for long time. So I say to my arty guy : Hey, dude. Call your boys and tell them to fire at x,y until they go winchester. So in game terms, lets assume it will be 15 turns. In the game, because of technical reasons you got to push the button every turn, but we can say it is a battery commander who repeats the order. Why then I cant use my FO to call another strike in another place for 15 turns ?

BTW I play lots of premade scenarios, which are as close to RL as the game can get. And usually (for some nations - NEVER) you wont get any FOs. So why purchase games should be different.

What I am really asking here is - how this rule improved the game ? And I am not buying the answer that it gets rid of people buying to much arty. There are easier ways to deal with it.
And yes, I know it is my game and I can play however I want etc etc etc...

[Vesku]

How can you tell which targets are observed by FO and which are not? The idea at this point is to make it as simple as possible, once you get exceptions and exceptions to exceptions the rule gets useless because no one can monitor it anymore. BTW, this is why we had a misunderstanding with Chris :)

About scens, I must say that it pisses me off that there is no FOs. What kind of idiot plans to use several battalions of artillery and sends not a single FO to the area? Has that EVER happened in history?

Nothing to do with number of tubes, just emphasis on the importance of FOs. Try it next time you play a purchase battle.

[Grumbler]

How can you tell which targets are observed by FO and which are not? The idea at this point is to make it as simple as possible, once you get exceptions and exceptions to exceptions the rule gets useless because no one can monitor it anymore. BTW, this is why we had a misunderstanding with Chris :)

About scens, I must say that it pisses me off that there is no FOs. What kind of idiot plans to use several battalions of artillery and sends not a single FO to the area? Has that EVER happened in history?

Nothing to do with number of tubes, just emphasis on the importance of FOs. Try it next time you play a purchase battle.

Batan? IIRC, all the FO's were in the lines carrying rifles. I am not very confident of the source. It was a book on guerrillas in the Philipines and I found a lot of BS in it, which makes me wonder about the parts I didn't know anything about.
The US is having a Pentegon brew-ha-ha over that today, or was last year. With all the new gear, the army wants to llet anyone call airstrikes. The Air Force doesn't. As far as srty goes, the US Army is phasing it out, which is a huge mistake. The Jedi Knights at the Pentagon claim there is no mission for it, since the Air force can put more HE on a target with greater accuracy. MLRS is tasked with counter battery and mortars used in local ontrol, so the arty is getting hosed.
None of the Jedi Knights are asking what happens if the AIr Force cannot gain control of the air? The rockets are too expensive for a sustained bombardment and mortars don't have the range.

[wulfir]

About scens, I must say that it pisses me off that there is no FOs.

I usually make the second unit an FO in my scenarios but seldom provide more than one - and sometimes the side intended for AI side will have to make do without one. Suppose the HQ will have to be considered an "emergency FO" in the scenarios that lack regular FOs.

[Grumbler]

That raises a question. Does the Program buy FO's in a random generated game? I seem to remember reading something about that, but forget which version and which mark.

[Weasel]

Yes it does. In my CPU generated games I have had up to three, and at other times none. Normally at least one.

[Thexder]

What I am really asking here is - how this rule improved the game ? And I am not buying the answer that it gets rid of people buying to much arty. There are easier ways to deal with it.
And yes, I know it is my game and I can play however I want etc etc etc...

What are those easier ways? To put a 10% etc. limit on points used for arty? To put a 10 etc. limit on the number of arty pieces? I think those rules are in fact more complicated than this one by Weasel & Vesku. I've used these rules in my previous games:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/thexder/Steel/steelrulesIII.html
They're much more complicated than the W&V one and I think I might switch to their rules, just to make it less complicated. The good thing in W&V arty rule is that there's a trade-off between the cost of arty and its effectiveness. The more FOs you've got the more flexible your arty is - but also much more expensive. I find that nice way to give some depth to the gaming experience.

Without any restrictions, arty is too deadly in MBT/WWII. For example against large paradrops it's way too easy to just assign half a dozen mortar platoons to pound the area where they landed. What is more usual is to have shitload of turrets and bomb the whole front. Very deadly, especially against the attacker.

When these rules are used the incentive to buy arty drops dramatically and the use is more realistic - huge concentrated bombartments of a single target.

Cheers,
Jukka

[Grumbler]

I avoid the arty domination by larger maps. A 120 by 120 map has so many hexes that spending all your points on Arty won't get you coverage of the entire map. What is that , 14400 hexs or so? Weasel's scoring system helps also, since arty CANNOT take ground (flags in this case). I encourage all my opponents to buy as much arty as they want, thinking that the more points they spend on arty, the less they have to spend on units that can take ground.

[retired from gaming]

What are those easier ways? To put a 10% etc. limit on points used for arty? To put a 10 etc. limit on the number of arty pieces?

The good thing in W&V arty rule is that there's a trade-off between the cost of arty and its effectiveness.

Without any restrictions, arty is too deadly in MBT/WWII.
Cheers,
Jukka

I think thats a good example of "If you dont want to have a problem dont create it in the first place"

If I understood all of those opinions correctly arty is too deadly in MBT/WW2, right ? How much "too deadly" it is ? Twice ?
There is no need to create any rules, complicated or not, to overcome this problem.
You can lower arty effectiveness to 50% in the preference menu and off you go. Job done. Thats why it is there. Why anyone would want to count FOs instead ?