Opening Artillery in Scenarios

[Simcoe]

In the other modules first round artillery is usually reserved for the attacking party but it seems every Cold War scenario has the defenders firing artillery on the first turn and in meeting engagements it's the same thing.

At first it came off as gamey because I can just sit in my deployment zone and wait out the turn knowing it's coming but is there a basis in real life for the constant opening Artillery? Did each side know when the other was deployed and ready for combat?

[MikeyD]

'Meeting engagement' is something of a myth. If two significant forces blindly stumble into each other while on the march something's gone terrible wrong. One legitimate use of artillery is 'area denial'. The intent is to make the enemy think twice before sending infantry into the area. An example off the top of my head is Germans in WWII dropping artillery onto a crossroads to dissuade the Americans from sending a supply column through.

Edited November 26, 2021 by MikeyD

[womble]

I've always rationalised a meeting engagement (ME) as the sort of thing that might happen when a counterattack and a breakthrough both pick the same, or at least intersecting axis of advance (because of terrain, or other factors). In a "fluid situation", or where the front lines are more dots and dashes than firm strokes, and some change of posture leads to both sides needing to seize a newly-significant feature, "Gittin' thar fustest, with the mostest".

Of course, this happened vanishingly rarely in the ETO, and even in the broad expanses of the OstFront, it wasn't exactly common, and it remains largely a gamey construct for the sake of "balance".

However, if you're going to damp the fires of outrage with sketchy "could'ves", the two sides must each have had some recon element available to determine the need to reach the objective, and that need must be urgent, because the sort of desperate lunge portrayed in most ME games wouldn't be attempted unless there was a really good reason, so might, prehaps, reasonably considered sufficiently high priority to be assigned "whatever arty is available", and those tubes might be targetted ahead of time, based on best information, for "best effect"...

Or you could come up with your own "improbable, but theoretically possible" rationale...

 

[Halmbarte]

Sometimes the defenders do identify the assembly areas that the attacker is using and attack them with artillery or air. 
 

Generally when I’m playing defense I don’t preplan artillery or air strikes for the first turn as it seems awfully gamey to me unless there are specific circumstances.

H

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Halmbarte said:

I don’t preplan artillery or air strikes

Why? preplan is just a bad idea lots of times but sometimes it is not. Area denial of obvious lanes of approach is a good tactic. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Horses for courses.....One of my favourite tactics is to plot one or more maximum duration harassment fires at mission start (the bigger the gun and the lower the rate of fire the better).  I then move observers into good positions and adjust the fires as targets present themselves. 

I've managed to keep batteries firing for up to 30 minutes and in one instance I've won a scenario using artillery alone, the bad guys surrendered.

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

.One of my favourite tactics is to plot one or more maximum duration harassment fires at mission start (the bigger the gun and the lower the rate of fire the better).  I then move observers into good positions and adjust the fires as targets present themselves. 

Exactly I just use Light ASAP even on light using a 25 pounder the impact if every there is still an overkill. In one British mission you even get 5 TRP's. C2? Just follow the explosions. 

[Halmbarte]

14 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Why? preplan is just a bad idea lots of times but sometimes it is not. Area denial of obvious lanes of approach is a good tactic. 

If I’m on defense with no indicators a attack is imminent it just seems gamey that right now is the time to start up the artillery because the scenario has started. 
 

The troops might have been in position from  hours to days before the game starts. 
 

H

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

The troops might have been in position from  hours to days before the game starts. 
 

Exactly and there is no patrol program? The game gives you certain tools use them or you lose the opportunity. A 1 hour or 2 hour scenario is gamey. A designer just can't make an eight hour scenario. You defend and an attack is imminent, if you ever play me feel free to use your assets outside the game preparation area of the attacker. Which is gamey but forests, chokepoints are fair game.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

25 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

If I’m on defense with no indicators a attack is imminent it just seems gamey that right now is the time to start up the artillery because the scenario has started. 
 

The troops might have been in position from  hours to days before the game starts. 
 

H

That's fair comment TBH, I guess you should make your call based on the information contained in the briefing.....That said, sending a few harassing rounds into positions overlooking your line doesn't seem at all unreasonable either.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Redwolf]

On the other hand you could argue that no sane defender would skip pre-registering TRPs in front of them.

[Halmbarte]

Or at least scraping foxholes and prepping vehicle hides… 

 

But we take what we get. 
 

H 

[slysniper]

its should be simple, arty should be allowed but there is just too many players that cannot handle playing against arty. Thus many house rules are too restrictive

The rule started coming about because there were players that would use it and strike set up areas of their opponant which is totally gamey, thus a good reason for not wanting to allow it. But other than that, there is no reason it should not be allowed.

 

I recall one battle where I preset my arty to land where I antisipated my opponant to be on turn 3 then did some tricks to make it happen.

He moved right into the location anticipated, he screemed and whinned and said I cheated.  we started over and I still kicked his butt. 

But the original move was not incorrect. he should have moved knowing and thinking about possible arty strikes. But as I said, most players do not want to have to play or think about what it takes to deal with it.

So in general, they have made house rules that really hurt game play if you are playing with a country that has real slow arty times to call in and there is no way to use it in the initial stages of the attack.

 

It is a area that players should discuss with each other. but you have my view on it. Other than targeting set up zones at the start of a battle, you cannot justify any other restriction as far as i am concerned for the attacker or the defender.

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

its should be simple, arty should be allowed but there is just too many players that cannot handle playing against arty. Thus many house rules are too restrictive

The rule started coming about because there were players that would use it and strike set up areas of their opponant which is totally gamey, thus a good reason for not wanting to allow it. But other than that, there is no reason it should not be allowed.

 

I recall one battle where I preset my arty to land where I antisipated my opponant to be on turn 3 then did some tricks to make it happen.

He moved right into the location anticipated, he screemed and whinned and said I cheated.  we started over and I still kicked his butt. 

But the original move was not incorrect. he should have moved knowing and thinking about possible arty strikes. But as I said, most players do not want to have to play or think about what it takes to deal with it.

So in general, they have made house rules that really hurt game play if you are playing with a country that has real slow arty times to call in and there is no way to use it in the initial stages of the attack.

 

It is a area that players should discuss with each other. but you have my view on it. Other than targeting set up zones at the start of a battle, you cannot justify any other restriction as far as i am concerned for the attacker or the defender.

I can understand that. I was talking more about single player scenarios like the first NYC campaign mission. Seems weird that both sides fire artillery at the same time during the first turn ever scenario.

[MikeyD]

Quote

Horses for courses...

I had only heard that phrase once before (on the podcast 'My Dad Wrote a Porno') and thought the phrase was 'horses for coursers' A courser is a type of horse. So I thought it was equivalent to saying 'birds of a feather flock together'. But the internet says that you're right, the word is 'courses'. In my defense, UK English tends to not pronounce a hard 'R' so courses and coursers would sound similar.

[MikeyD]

Most AI opening bombardments can be considered cosmetic, or mood-setting. The intent isn't really to kill anyone, its more to get you on edge for the game. Some people hate them with the heat of a thousand suns, other consider then a mild diversion that enhances immersion. A few AI opening bombardments are genuinely tactical. Lets roll the dice and see how many of the enemy we can attrit at the outset. You may wind up starting the game without an infantry squad or anti-tank team that you were counting on.

[chuckdyke]

27 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Most AI opening bombardments can be considered cosmetic,

You can be sure of one thing there is no enemy infantry where the AI planned his artillery mission. 

[The_Capt]

9 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Most AI opening bombardments can be considered cosmetic, or mood-setting.

I encourage people to play The Citadel...and I apologize in advance.

[Halmbarte]

11 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Most AI opening bombardments can be considered cosmetic, or mood-setting. The intent isn't really to kill anyone, its more to get you on edge for the game. Some people hate them with the heat of a thousand suns, other consider then a mild diversion that enhances immersion. A few AI opening bombardments are genuinely tactical. Lets roll the dice and see how many of the enemy we can attrit at the outset. You may wind up starting the game without an infantry squad or anti-tank team that you were counting on.

I always try to assume that the enemy will arty the most obvious places for me to set up, so I avoid putting troops there that are unprotected. Capabilities not intentions and all that. 

 

If I absolutely need eyes on I'll use a scout team so I'm only risking 2 guys instead of a entire fire team. I'll also keep infantry in their tracks to protect them from fragments but keep them close to where I want them. 

 

I did lose a squad that way playing a scenario when a rocket from the opening barrage hit the roof of their M113 and wiped out the squad and crew. 

 

H

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 11/26/2021 at 4:29 AM, MikeyD said:

Most AI opening bombardments can be considered cosmetic, or mood-setting. The intent isn't really to kill anyone, its more to get you on edge for the game.

Speak for yourself mate! 

TBH while I do sometimes use AI Target Plans for atmosphere (especially with helicopters in CM:A), I'm equally happy using them in an attempt to kill people.....Even if you don't get a Setup Zone you still have thirty seconds. 

Run Forrest! 

[panzerde]

On 11/26/2021 at 9:23 AM, The_Capt said:

I encourage people to play The Citadel...and I apologize in advance.

As I sat there a couple of days ago, going "Well, I knew I should have dispersed better on that objective" while I sifted the remains of two platoons out of their wreck foxholes. Most effective use of cluster munitions I've seen in a scenario to date.

[Halmbarte]

Sometimes you just gotta have troops on a location you expect to get hammered. I'll keep a scout team out if I need a set of eyes and keep the rest of the infantry in their AFVs to protect them form fragments. 

 

Although I did loose a full squad doing that when a 122mm rocket hit the top of their M113. That didn't turn out so well for them. 

 

H

[chuckdyke]

The old game of 'Battleships' on the table top. You were not allowed to peek over the other side. But you can do in CM with your helicopters. If they start shooting at something you know a little more. Choppers a mix of scouts and flying artillery. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by chuckdyke

[slysniper]

19 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The old game of 'Battleships' on the table top. You were not allowed to peek over the other side. But you can do in CM with your helicopters. If they start shooting at something you know a little more. Choppers a mix of scouts and flying artillery. 

Yes,  and a good use of it as a asset. I am so leary of using air if it has been given to me in a scenario. I expect something out there wanting to shoot in down. in the modern titles anyway, they are not so safe to go out and just do anything, they normally do not last long.

But thats better than not using them at all.

[Halmbarte]

Air is tough. Do I use them to area target places I can't see or wait until the schwerpunkt is developed and use air power (hopefully) decisively? I tend to go for the 2nd approach. That also gives me a chance to target AA assets to clear the way for any attached air. 

 

I also always assume that the enemy is bringing air assets. Vehicles and troops get parked under trees and in the lee of buildings whenever I can. I try to minimize exposure and move frequently when troops have to be out in the open. 

 

H