Fire On The Mountain (FOTM) a la Gustav Line?

[John Kettler]

With Gustav Line coming, I feel it's appropriate to invite the "guilty" party or parties who created the harrowing original FOTM to take that incredible scenario and rework it for Gustav Line. I think we've got the pieces now, and the combat visuals should be spectacular, maybe even cinematic.

Were this scenario to be redone, my suggestion would be H2H and PBEM only, for to do otherwise (vs AI), in my view, is to waste an incredible, deep and rich wargaming opportunity.

I was there!

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

We still don't have mortar TRPs!

[Vanir Ausf B]

We still don't have mortar TRPs!

:confused: What are you talking about?

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Back after I first played FOTM, I mounted a strong argument that mortars be supplied with separate TRPs. Here's why. Mortars are organic, When a unit goes into position, mortars are registered first (critical to even a hasty defense), after which come the FA registrations, if FA's available and time permits.

To this day, the Army struggles with properly integrating mortar fires into the overall fireplan. I saw a recent Rand study in which 107mm/4.2" mortars of friendly units fighting at NTC were consistently underutilized and, often, left out of the fire plan entirely.

I quote from my AAR chronicling my clash with Monsieur Dorosh:

"I realize that in CM, a TRP can be used by any indirect fire weapon in range, thus can really skew the tactical situation, but because of this, I wound up in a tactical fix highly unlikely in real life. Standard tactical procedure would’ve been to register company and battalion mortar defensive concentrations as soon as the units secured their various objectives. Later, field artillery would also conduct its zeroing in. By contrast, my men were stuck way out in Indian country with not a single tube."

I talked about concentrations (designated map boxes) for mortars in particular, rather than TRPs. No joy to date that I'm aware of. No mortar TRPs and no concentrations, either.

Hope the above clears things up for you.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

I dont get what the problem is Kettler?

You're saying mortars should automatically come with TRPs that only they can use?

At present the TRP system seems fine, and I don't think at least on map mortars really need an boost to their effectiveness.

As far as off map, they come in plenty quick enough, even on elite I suspect they come in a couple minutes faster than they would in real life.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Mortars, out there in the so-called real world, register targets, our TRPs. These are separate and distinct from FA's TRPs in that FA hasn't conducted registration fires upon them, hence, has no firing data. The organic mortars do, though, and they are the responsive, pretty much guaranteed to be there fires that are the backbone of the low level units. FA may or may not be available, but when you're in a jam, there's nothing more responsive and reliable for fire support than organic mortars.

This is why I asked for mortar specific TRPs, as in for mortars firing indirectly. As noted before, in defense, mortars fire concentrations into defined boxes and walk the sheaf forward and back, sometimes side to side as well.

Further, I think we really need proper means of laying out Final Protective Fire lines for MGs and other infantry weapons. These would be separate and distinct from TRPs for mortars and FA, who need those TRPs for other things. For example, a TRP in a defile which can't be covered by direct fire weapons is a really smart idea, but that TRP may well be in use for a Direct Fire task as things now stand.

I hope this clarifies what I said earlier. If in doubt, understand that my goal is ever to give the player the same capabilities, within the limits of the game engine, as the wartime real commanders had.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Badger73]

Sublime,

Mortars, out there in the so-called real world, register targets, our TRPs. These are separate and distinct from FA's TRPs in that FA hasn't conducted registration fires upon them, hence, has no firing data. The organic mortars do, though, and they are the responsive, pretty much guaranteed to be there fires that are the backbone of the low level units. FA may or may not be available, but when you're in a jam, there's nothing more responsive and reliable for fire support than organic mortars.

This is why I asked for mortar specific TRPs, as in for mortars firing indirectly. As noted before, in defense, mortars fire concentrations into defined boxes and walk the sheaf forward and back, sometimes side to side as well.

Further, I think we really need proper means of laying out Final Protective Fire lines for MGs and other infantry weapons. These would be separate and distinct from TRPs for mortars and FA, who need those TRPs for other things. For example, a TRP in a defile which can't be covered by direct fire weapons is a really smart idea, but that TRP may well be in use for a Direct Fire task as things now stand.

I hope this clarifies what I said earlier. If in doubt, understand that my goal is ever to give the player the same capabilities, within the limits of the game engine, as the wartime real commanders had.

Regards,

John Kettler

I'm not familiar with the "Fire On the Mountain" scenario you reference. If I understand you correctly, you suggest that defensive force mortar sections be allocated separate and distinct TRP's. Not so? If that is the case, I agree with you that the US army typically fails or forgets to integrate organic mortar fire plans into and with artillery support fire plans.

(My experience has been that US forces more often than not curse bad guy mortars while cavalierly dismissing any suggestion that good guy mortars might be of any use. Go figure . . . . )

To represent this in the game, it seems to me that the Combat Unit RTO's / Weapons Section HQ's should be the only units to see and call for fires on mortar TRPs while artillery FO's would be the only units to see and call for fires on artillery/Air Support TRPs.

In my mind the only effective offensive TRP's should belong to the artillery FOs given that Unit organic mortar sections/platoons would need to move forward and deploy in forward positions after a scenario begins. Typically those tubes wind up where they would not have pre-registered their fires.

Are these the points you raise? I opine that effort for coding in the game engine would cost far more than the benefits to gaming outcomes. It might be cool to have but I don't mind its absence for purposes of gratifying game play.

[Wodin]

Why would you want this scenario to not have AI plans so us single players can enjoy it if it was that good.

With Gustav Line coming, I feel it's appropriate to invite the "guilty" party or parties who created the harrowing original FOTM to take that incredible scenario and rework it for Gustav Line. I think we've got the pieces now, and the combat visuals should be spectacular, maybe even cinematic.

Were this scenario to be redone, my suggestion would be H2H and PBEM only, for to do otherwise (vs AI), in my view, is to waste an incredible, deep and rich wargaming opportunity.

I was there!

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

We still don't have mortar TRPs!

[Michael Emrys]

Why would you want this scenario to not have AI plans so us single players can enjoy it if it was that good.

That puzzled me too. Having a good AI plan would not in any way invalidate it for H2H play.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Badger73,

Any time the parent formation significantly moves, the mortars displace, set up and conduct registration fires. This happens even before foxholes are dug. The firing data is with the mortars, so only the mortars can use it, since it's weapon specific. This is why I want the mortars to have their own type of TRP.

FA may or may not be available, but if it is, it must conduct its own separate registration, for which the data are recorded and are also with the guns. The only legit way to have both mortars and FA use the same TRP is for both to register on the same set of coordinates.

Properly speaking, the mortars operate as organic fire support for their parent units. 60s, for example, are the hip pocket artillery of a company CO and 81s for the battalion CO. The company CO can request 81 fires, but he owns the 60s. In turn, this makes a considerable difference in responsiveness and availability.

As for FOTM, it was a scenario in the first Rumblings Of War ever held, and FOTM was a gut buster and a nail biter rolled into one.

Wodin,

I think vs AI is a bad idea because the very nature of the scenario is highly complex and requires coordinating multiple forces not merely in somewhat bumpy 2D, but extraordinarily varied 3D. I seriously doubt the AI's going to be effective fighting in multiple directions at once and at wildly varying target altitudes, but that's what this battle requires. Fundamentally, though, vs AI simply won't be anywhere close to the rich, ultra demanding experience of fighting a live human opponent who's also pushed to the breaking point.

From what I know of it, AI has a tough time defending in more standard situations, but this one is anything but standard and will take everything you have. As a human.

I may be completely wrong, and it may be possible to do an excellent vs AI scenario, but I have profound doubts this is feasible.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Badger73]

Badger73,

Any time the parent formation significantly moves, the mortars displace, set up and conduct registration fires. This happens even before foxholes are dug. The firing data is with the mortars, so only the mortars can use it, since it's weapon specific. This is why I want the mortars to have their own type of TRP.

<snipped>

Properly speaking, the mortars operate as organic fire support for their parent units. 60s, for example, are the hip pocket artillery of a company CO and 81s for the battalion CO. The company CO can request 81 fires, but he owns the 60s. In turn, this makes a considerable difference in responsiveness and availability.

<snipped>

John Kettler

Dear Mr. Kettler,

I have found that it is not always true that mortars get to conduct registration fires whenever they displace and set-up. The FDC certainly calculates firing solutions but actual registration rounds are only fired when there's an FO somewhere who could position themselves for a registration mission. Registration is always desired but often depends on how long the unit remains static and the supply of ammo available. I had suggested in my previous post and concur with you that in real life mortar TRP's are unique to the mortar unit and typically unknown to other support artillery. There are exceptions to that of course such as situations where the FO registering the mortars also happens to be the attached artillery FO or the mortar FO's are tightly integrated with the Arty FO for a specific mission or due to long periods of joint operations.

The topic of mortar responsiveness and availability is its own paragraph in the formal Operations (Five Paragraph Op) Order. Company commanders may have priority of fires from the Bn 81's as well as priority of fires from Div Arty if so specified in their mission orders. Actual responsiveness depends on a myriad of factors like situation, training, supply levels, and such.

I disagree that CMBN should have separate mortar, artillery, and air support TRP's. I thnk it's something more appropriate in a battle simulation like TacOps.

Your own "Learning Curve" thread notes that CMx2 is a pretty sophisticated computer wargame. Managing TRPs down to such a low level of detail just adds more "design load" for players to attend. I worry that unit specific TRPs would turn CMBN into a hard-core simulation and likely alienate potential gamers for no tangible benefit.

Your points are valid but the absence of unit-type specific TRP's in no way reduces my enjoyment of this game. I respectfully suggest that the efforts for adding artillery-type specific TRPs; the labor of coding, testing, and creating the additional GUI within the game are neither cost effective nor substantively justified. There's so much more I would prefer the design and development team to provide instead. Be that as it may, good luck and good gaming!

[John Kettler]

Badger73,

For purposes of this discussion, with the sole exception of my reference to the 107mm mortars at NTC, I was talking about the situation in WW II. In the accounts I've read, but don't recall the titles of presently, the mortars get set up right away. Maybe I overstated the registration side of things, but in very rapid order, there'd be usable firing data for multiple aimpoints. I do not know whether FDCs as such existed at all at battalion level during WW II, but I suspect not. I think they were FA only and at division.

I take your well-argued points, but reply that, for FOTM for sure, and perhaps many other scenarios I've yet to see, I asked for mortar TRPs because they were desperately needed. My ability to fight the battle suffered significantly for the want of them, in turn, resulting in unnecessary losses.

I have no knowledge of how hard it would be to provide mortar TRPs,on any number of levels.

Compared to CMBO, which was what ROW was fought using, CMFI IS a hard core sim.

If you want the sweep of WW II in NWE, play CMBO, but understand going in that its playability is directly related to how certain things were and weren't modeled. CMBB arrived later and introduced reasonably decent depictions of MG capabilities. Attacks, as we knew them, were never the same again, particularly when it came to storming MG nests. What worked fine before was now more akin to diving headlong into a giant propeller at speed! We had to relearn tactics.

CMBN/CMFI appeal, not to the wargaming dilettantes, but to the serious sim fans. Why? This game takes work, the players are frighteningly well informed and, not unreasonably, expect to be able to do things in game their forebears could during the War. Having been in CM since the Beta Demo, I still find stuff in CMBN which drives me nuts, not least of which is siting guns. Losing the Cover Armor arc also smarted, but with the latest fixes, it's back. And somebody just reported we have a Withdraw equivalent command! It's called Evade.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Thought I'd drop in briefly and note that now, under 3.0, tac air is back in the game and engageable from the ground, I think FOTM may be more doable now that at any time since CMx2 debuted. And you've got proper mountains. When I played it, in CMx1 first ever CMBO, we had more like glorified hills. I believe it would be visually spectacular. I earlier strongly recommended H2H options only, but if some scenario design genius can figure out how to get other modes to work, who am I to gainsay such a thing? Our own Jeff Weatherspoon/JWXSpoon built the scenario.

Regards,

John Kettler