Targeting engineers

[dto]

A tactic I've recently been using is to concentrate my artillery on enemy engineers as much as possible, even when good infantry and armor targets are available. I did this as the Allies in Bulge, and I think it hurt the German ability to build bridges and clear obstacles.

I'm now playing as the Soviets in the Kursk Alt campaign, and I am relentlessly targeting the German engineers. I think this is badly damaging their capability to clear minefields and breach anti-tank ditches. This is an especially nasty trick in long campaign games, where one side might run out of engineers long before game end.

I'm wondering if there should be a house rule that allows a limited number of artillery barrages on engineers. Another possibility might be to use the Alt Indirect Fire rules, so that players can stack infantry/armor with engineers to absorb fire.

Michael

[fastphil]

I am not sure what your issue is. That is what actually happened. I always target engineers building bridges, entrenching, or clearing minefields whether it be direct or indirect fire-whatever is available. But most times I go for a mission kill-disruption. If I have soft targets in Travel mode I might choose otherwise depending on the target it self. Maybe the engineers should stay out of LOS to enemy units until needed. That is a risk you take when you move engineers into LOS. It is your opponents choice.

[dto]

I am not sure what your issue is.  That is what actually happened.  I always target engineers building bridges, entrenching, or clearing  minefields whether it be direct or indirect fire-whatever is available.  But most times I go for a mission kill-disruption.  If I have soft targets in Travel mode I might choose otherwise depending on the target it self.  Maybe the engineers should stay out of LOS to enemy units until needed.  That is a risk you take when you move engineers into LOS.  It is your opponents choice.

No, I don't think engineers were exclusively targeted in real life, especially if they weren't performing engineering functions at the time. Nor would it have been that easy to identify engineers in the rear.

To some extent, this is an artifact of the PzC system, where you can concentrate all your artillery on a few special targets like engineers. It's not that big a deal in most cases, and maybe not a big deal in campaigns that don't feature a lot of minefields and rivers. But in games like the Kursk campaign, this is a problem.

Michael

[Dog Soldier]

The solution is just as simple as has already been said. Protect engineers by keeping them out of LOS. This why there is a rule to allow engineers to ferry infantry across a river. The infantry push enemy units out of LOS of the crossing site and let the engineers work unmolested.

Naturally, as the attacker one uses copious artillery to protect the infantry on the far shore until the bridge is built.

Night time is a great opportunity to lift enemy mines and clear lanes for the dawn attack.

One just has to think a bit about period tactics before committing highly trained and expensive units to the battle. Losses among one's engineers, being specialists, garner higher per man VP. This reinforces the correct tactic to cause losses on the opposing side's engineers when they are exposed.

Dog Soldier

[Plain Ian]

The solution is just as simple as has already been said.  Protect engineers by keeping them out of LOS.  This why there is a rule to allow engineers to ferry infantry across a river.  The infantry push enemy units out of LOS of the crossing site and let the engineers work unmolested.

Naturally, as the attacker one uses copious artillery to protect the infantry on the far shore until the bridge is built.

Night time is a great opportunity to lift enemy mines and clear lanes for the dawn attack.

One just has to think a bit about period tactics before committing highly trained and expensive units to the battle.  Losses among one's engineers, being specialists, garner higher per man VP.  This reinforces the correct tactic to cause losses on the opposing side's engineers when they are exposed.

Dog Soldier

Maybe we should have a limit on how many artillery units can target one hex?

[jim pfleck]

DTO-This is what I did, to some effect I think, in our El Alamein Battle (that DTO won as the British).

[Dog Soldier]

Plain Ian,

There should already be a limit on the number of artillery factors that can attack a single hex in a single turn.  I think that was added to the series around when Korsun 44 came out.

Dog Soldier

[Andrea G]

A solution could be the alternative indirect fire rule.
Using it will not be possible to target specifically an engineer unit if it is stacked with other units.

[Plain Ian]

Plain Ian,

There should already be a limit on the number of artillery factors that can attack a single hex in a single turn.  I think that was added to the series around when Korsun 44 came out.

Dog Soldier

I've never noticed any limits? Korsun 44 came out a few years ago but I've never noticed any changes in the Change Notes? 

Air attacks are limited but I have never played a game where I received a message saying I cannot make any more air attacks. Even in Normandy 44 I tend to spread the air attacks out rather than pound the same unit.

I'm all in favour of Alternate Indirect Artillery. I could play the Russian player in the campaign Stalingrad 42 if you made it Alternate. The thought of firing off all that artillery definitely makes my wrists ache.