Artillery Spotting & Changes

[K K Rossokolski]

Hi All,
I just have to jump in here. This GAME was never intended to be a simulation of WWII. Lets stop trying to get there.

I quote from my now quite dogeared West Front manual...Part 1 Introduction..."West Front is a tactical level game portraying some of the most significant and challenging battles fought on the Western Front in WWII." The other theatre games have something similar. I for one would be interested in your thoughts of what it was meant to be.

One problem I see is as the game moves forward it risks losing the people who have played it the longest.

An interesting point...I suspect you're right

Its a game and the word game implies that there is luck, wonder and even sometimes true amazement as to the results.

Not just in a game, but as in life, love and war. Was it not Napoleon, history's greatest soldier, who demanded one quality above all others in his subordinates...luck!!

[FM WarB]

We will be more than lucky if everyone agrees about this or anything else. I for one ala Thomas Jefferson welcome all opinions, even if I dont agree. I also have an open mind, and have been known to change an opinion or two after rational discussion.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Hi All,
I just have to jump in here. This GAME was never intended to be a simulation of WWII. Lets stop trying to get there.

I quote from my now quite dogeared West Front manual...Part 1 Introduction..."West Front is a tactical level game portraying some of the most significant and challenging battles fought on the Western Front in WWII." The other theatre games have something similar. I for one would be interested in your thoughts of what it was meant to be.

One problem I see is as the game moves forward it risks losing the people who have played it the longest.

An interesting point...I suspect you're right

Its a game and the word game implies that there is luck, wonder and even sometimes true amazement as to the results.

Not just in a game, but as in life, love and war. Was it not Napoleon, history's greatest soldier, who demanded one quality above all others in his subordinates...luck!!

LOL! Napoleon? :eek1:
Hmmm... I think he once said, "I'd rather have a lucky general than a good general." He also once said, "I do not know the quality of my generals because they have yet to be beaten. Only in defeat and retreat would their real skills be shown." :smoke:
Though I think we could have a real discussion of who was the greatest soldier? :rolleyes:



Ed

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I quote from my now quite dogeared West Front manual...Part 1 Introduction..."West Front is a tactical level game portraying some of the most significant and challenging battles fought on the Western Front in WWII." The other theatre games have something similar. I for one would be interested in your thoughts of what it was meant to be.

Indeed it does say that. But that statement does not state anywhere that it is a historical simulation.

It potrays action on the western front as the movie Midway portrayed Midway, as Tora, Tora, Tora portrayed Pearl Harbor, as The Battle of the Bulge (the 1965 one with Henry Fonda) potrayed the battle of the Bulge.

Clearly to me it claims nothing about being historically accurate. It just portays those events.

And while it does not have the word historical in the introduction it does have the word game. :smoke:

Thanx!

Hawk

[timshin42]

Given the reliability and simplicity of the any unit can spot for any friendly indirect fire unit regardless of chain of command or national artillery usage system, it certainly aint broke.

I happen to think it's unrealistic.

Given the FACT that the American Fire Support system, largely developed by MG McNair at Ft Sill PRIOR to WWII, coupled with the Signal/Communications capabilities developed by the American Army prior to and during the war, DID INDEED give US artillery the capability to deliver indirect fire regardless of the chain of command, (with varying levels of effectiveness depending largely on the Artillery Missions assigned to the firing units). , the US system modelled in JTCS is not generally unrealistic.
Two basic items which are I HAPPEN TO THINK ARE UNREALISTIC: the failure to recognize the unique ability of US artillery to deliver ACCURATE predicted fires (unobserved fires), and no capability for TOTs (simultaneous converging fires of several to many artillery units with a large effect multiplier). The above comments are addressed to a stand alone US model.

The superior results of British observed fires, due to assignment of more senior, experienced officers to their FOO teams, is not recognized in that model. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS UNREALISTIC.

The Soviets attached little importance to observed fires, thus virtually did not have FOs, nor did they train maneuver commanders in the skill. The Soviets almost exclusively used preplanned fires and enormous massed fires and rolling barrages to very great effect. The absence of that capability in the JTCS model, along with having the the same capabilities for observed fire as the US Artillery: well I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS UNREALISTIC.

The prewar limitation on German artillery number of units permitted, resulted in a greater dependence and superior capabilities of close air support and tank mobility and lesser reliance and less capability of FA combat support other than in the defense is only marginally modelled, and they have features identical to the US, Soviet, and British. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS UNREALISTIc.

The Japanese had crummy field artillery weapons, tactics and doctrine and really didn't give a damn about field artillery, yet they have the same model as all the others. Need I state how realistic I think that is?

In summary, the unique advantages and disadvantages of the different nations artilleries are not recognized. I have identified specifically some of the most obvious anomalies; I'm sure many of you can identify others.

Perhaps some of the solutions can be achieved by system designers, like Jason, (not SCENARIO designers, who face the same restrictions of "unreal" that players face). Perhaps some can be achieved only by the programmers. Perhaps some are just wishful thinking.

Jason has identified that this is curently only in the "thinking about it" stage, so arguing and bickering about it is non-productive. Blue sky it! Just because I happen to think that certain ideas are silly from a real world perspective doesn't mean they aren't practical or won't work from a gaming perspective.

Simply saying I disagree with "X" person , or "its not realistic" is also unproductive without SPECIFICALLY identifying what it is you think is not right AND SPECIFICALLY what you would like to see done or changied.

We can all be very helpful to the Project Manager (Jason) or we can be a bunch of bickering, braying jackasses!

[FM WarB]

An excellent summary, timshin.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

An excellent summary, timshin.

I second that! :bow:



RR

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

There has been a lot of discussion that the current artillery spotting rules must be changed from a "realism" standpoint. However; I have read little to nothing on how any of these proposed changes would impact game play. :chin:

My view on artillery is that the current rules are adequate and work well within the JTCS game mechanics. Artillery; when one side is blessed with it, works as intended. Combat units can spot and call in artillery fire that will land in the turn following the request. Some artillery; like the Russian BM-13 Katyusha rocket launcher, takes an additional turn to reload its rocket tubes. Pretty straight forward.

IMO; as a JTCS player - not scenario designer, I like this abstracted artillery treatment. I don't want to micro manage my artillery forces. I want to focus on how artillery will support my troop advances - not that my FO is out of position and whoops, that combat unit can't call in fire from a particular artillery battery because it is not in the same chain of command.

Sorry; but for me, it is enough that I need to try to keep my combat units within support range of their assigned battalion HQs for supply purposes.

I am against adding an additional level of complexity (yes, all artillery change support postings advocate an increased level of complexity - adding additional units like FOs. Changing the chain of command to call in artillery strikes, etc.), in the name of "realism". Also any purposed artillery changes that I have read would fundamentally change how artillery spotting works and would have a major and unknown impact on game play. I don't see any of these proposed changes as incremental ones.

Finally; as a JTCS player, I have never played a PBeM game in which myself or any of my opponents have cited the current artillery spotting rules as being so flawed as to negatively impact on game play or flow. This has been my experience and to be frank, I have never considered "revamping" the artillery spotting rules. IMO, it should not have a higher priority versus other JTCS rule issues such as extreme assault, variable visibility, and existence of weird units like the "magical" bombers and "bathtub" navy. (not to open that discussion in this thread!)

Again, I believe the impact of these proposed artillery spotting rules to game play and balance need further discussion.

[Huib Versloot]

Gents:

There has been a lot of discussion that the current artillery spotting rules must be changed from a "realism" standpoint. However; I have read little to nothing on how any of these proposed changes would impact game play. :chin:

My view on artillery is that the current rules are adequate and work well within the JTCS game mechanics. Artillery; when one side is blessed with it, works as intended. Combat units can spot and call in artillery fire that will land in the turn following the request. Some artillery; like the Russian BM-13 Katyusha rocket launcher, takes an additional turn to reload its rocket tubes. Pretty straight forward.

IMO; as a JTCS player - not scenario designer, I like this abstracted artillery treatment. I don't want to micro manage my artillery forces. I want to focus on how artillery will support my troop advances - not that my FO is out of position and whoops, that combat unit can't call in fire from a particular artillery battery because it is not in the same chain of command.

Sorry; but for me, it is enough that I need to try to keep my combat units within support range of their assigned battalion HQs for supply purposes.

I am against adding an additional level of complexity (yes, all artillery change support postings advocate an increased level of complexity - adding additional units like FOs. Changing the chain of command to call in artillery strikes, etc.), in the name of "realism". Also any purposed artillery changes that I have read would fundamentally change how artillery spotting works and would have a major and unknown impact on game play. I don't see any of these proposed changes as incremental ones.

Finally; as a JTCS player, I have never played a PBeM game in which myself or any of my opponents have cited the current artillery spotting rules as being so flawed as to negatively impact on game play or flow. This has been my experience and to be frank, I have never considered "revamping" the artillery spotting rules. IMO, it should not have a higher priority versus other JTCS rule issues such as extreme assault, variable visibility, and existence of weird units like the "magical" bombers and "bathtub" navy. (not to open that discussion in this thread!)

Again, I believe the impact of these proposed artillery spotting rules to game play and balance need further discussion.

The main problem about artillery is that it is way too effective, both from a "realism" point view, as well as a "game play" point of view.
Why it is too effective atm is plain to see. Any unit can call in any gun on the map that has sufficient range.
So currently as a designer what you do is reduce the number of tubes and deviate from historical numbers to get acceptable and playable results, something you never do with other units.
I would like to see a game where historical numbers of artillery, and artillery types can be placed in the scenarios.
How it can be improved can be discussed, I just would like to be able to place the correct numbers and types in the scenario and get roughly realistic/ playable results. A simple wish.

A primitive but effective first step would be a separate ammo level, that's my idea. But if the developers can come up with something better I'm all for it. Frankly I don't really care how it is done, but that something is done to improve it is certainly desirable.

[Kool Kat]

The main problem about artillery is that it is way too effective, both from a "realism" point view, as well as a "game play" point of view.
Why it is too effective atm is plain to see. Any unit can call in any gun on the map that has sufficient range.

Under the present system trucks, unarmoured halftracks, motorcycles and stand alone leaders cannot spot for artillery fire.

Gents:

So; under current JTCS rules, there ARE restrictions on what units may act as artillery spotters. So, should the discussion center on a further reduction on the "types" of combat units that may call in artillery strikes?

Now; if the argument is that artillery is too effective because it is "too powerful," or "too accurate" - should we not discuss the possibility of reducing artillery strength points? Or reducing the 100% "chance" of artillery striking a map coordinate with a spotting unit? Maybe tie in the successful landing of an artillery round into a country's artillery command & control capabilities during that period of time?

IMO; considering these referenced incremential artillery spotting proposals, is one way to initiate "needed?" ;) change without fundamentially altering the entire way artillery spotting is performed - proposed total revamps of the current artillery spotting rules that would add both complexity and a huge unknown element to game play.