Moving TRP's from Fortifications to Support?

[Talenn]

Is there any chance that they can be moved in the 'purchase' category? I ask because the attacker is never allowed to purchase fortifications. IMO, the attacker should be allow to have certain 'pre-registered' locations for his Arty as well. I think this would probably almost be a necessity for any East Front Scens anyways...ie CM2.

As someone who plays the Red Army in most games where they are available, I feel sorta lost unless I can 'pre-plan' my Artillery ; ) I like the ability for an attack to preselect certain hills and woodlines as priority targets. Maybe put them in BOTH 'purchase' locations and have them cost a little more in the 'Support' category? (40?).

Any thoughts on this?

Thanx,

Talenn

[John Kettler]

Talenn,

If what you say is indeed true (haven't checked myself), then I strongly concur. It was and is common practice to register the guns in the weeks prior to the offensive. This is particularly true of key terrain on the axis of advance from which strong resistance is expected or is easily identified as an aiming offset. The exception to this rule would be if surprise had to be maintained at all costs.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bullethead]

Talenn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I ask because the attacker is never allowed to purchase fortifications. IMO, the attacker should be allow to have certain 'pre-registered' locations for his Arty as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The attacker can buy TRPs as it is now, even though they are on the fortification menu. I've used this feature several times in making scenarios.

Now, I've never done one of those DYO things where 2 players purchase units, so that may not be the case in such games. But as far as scenario design goes, there is no side restriction on TRP ownership that I can see.

------------------

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Talenn]

Bullethead:

Yes, I mean in the Quick Battle DYO type games. In those, it restricts you to certain numbers of points in certain categories. There are no attacker points in Fortifications.

In the EDITOR, you can pick and choose what you want without restriction, but every now and then, its fun to just mess with the Quick Battles, especially when playing 'hotseat' with limited time.

Thanx,

Talenn

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, I mean in the Quick Battle DYO type games. In those, it restricts you to certain numbers of points in certain categories. There are no attacker points in Fortifications.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(back from checking this). Yeah, I see what you mean. I don't particularly like this, either. My main problem is that before I got to pick units, I had selected "no restrictions" on what I could buy. Yet instead I really was restricted.

This does put a damper on freedom in a DYO. The only way currently for an attacker to have a TRP is if the scenario is made up by hand, which means the designer knows the OOB of both sides and neither player can alter it.

OTOH, TRPs are quite cheap--a mere 30 points. So maybe they'd unbalance a DYO?

------------------

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Talenn]

"OTOH, TRPs are quite cheap--a mere 30 points. So maybe they'd unbalance a DYO?"

Possible, I suppose, but doubtful. If so, then the other work-around of having them in the 'Support' Category with an increased cost seems to be good a solution. To me it just looks like a slight oversight, not a balance issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but if not, its just something I'd like to see for a future patch if possible.

Thanx,

Talenn

[Wolfe]

With the new point limits that are coming in the next patch, I used the editor to set up a battle with the attackers getting 3400 points and the defenders 2000 points. As attacker, I could afford a company of infantry to go along with FO spotters consisting of: 2 240mm Arty batteries, 3 105's, 2 155's, 4 4.2in,, 1 4.5in, 3 81mm mortars, and 8 TRPs.

I set the 8 TRPs underneath various buildings in town, and proceeded to completely level it. One building died in the first turn, 2 in the 2nd, 9!!! in the 3rd, and 2 more in the 4th and 5th turns. These were the large heavy building types, not rinky dink little houses. Results: 113 enemy casualties (40% of his force) and 2 knocked out vehicles, and that was only 5 turns worth.

This makes the prospect of having the defenders with 5000 points and attackers with ~8500 points a truly horrific concept. Try it yourself and see.

Now I *do* think the QBs needed some more points to create larger battles, and am glad to see that BTS upped the point limit, but was shocked at how the TRPs turned voluminous amounts of artillery into highly accurate nuclear weapons.

So, yes, giving the attackers TRPs might not be a good idea. Even giving them to *defenders* with virtually unlimited buying power might be a bad thing.

BTW, I also noticed that TRPs weren't limited to their own setup zones. I could move them around at will, even into the enemy's setup area! Not a good idea, IMO. This is true in the VoT demo too.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 07-02-2000).]

[Sten]

Wolfe,

13 different batteries opens up on preplotted locations that are exactly on top of the enemy?

I'd say that 40% losses were about right, (no knowledge, just gut feeling) maybe even a bit low, but that might be due to those heavy buildings.

But after all that heavy stuff was over, you were left with a company of infantry, right? And you were supposed to attack a force of about 60% * 2000 = 1200 points, right?

That must have been a total loss?

Sten

[Talenn]

Wolfe:

I would wager that with that much Arty, you could have accomplished the same effects WITHOUT TRPs. Perhaps it would have been a little later in the game by a turn or 2, but with the points you spent on 8 TRP's (240), you could have added more Arty anyways. I still dont see this as a problem for TRPS as the attacker.

Massed arty is GOING to slaughter any one particular point of the map...period. Just out of curiousity, how big was the map that you had THAT many points on, anyway? ; ) I would think that 3400 points would need to be played out on a VERY large map, and IMO, this alone should dilute the firepower of the Arty. If the defenders have only a few objectives to guard, then sure they are going to get plastered, but IMO, they should have a nice set of SPREAD out objectives for forces of that size.

Still, you do bring up some interesting points on the higher point battles and Arty effectiveness. I still dont think it really has much to do with TRPs for the attacker though. They get them in 'canned' Scens, and no one seems the worse for wear. I just dont see it as something to disrupt game balance if Arty itself is actually balanced (and it appears to be, provided the battlefiled is large enought per tube).

Thanx for the input!

Talenn

[Wolfe]

I certainly can understand having overwhelming artillery available, especially as Allies. But the TRPs seem to me to make the Arty too powerful and too accurate. It can reach areas that you don't have LOS to and brings down arty in a hurry. The first 240mm shells begin to fall just at the end of turn 1. Without LOS or TRP, it would be more like ~5 mins worth of waiting.

I've tried (played through completely) a 3400 point scenario (2000 defender) that consisted of 8 smaller Arty batteries (mostly 81mm, 75mm, 4.2in, and 105) along with 2 81mm and 3 60mm mortar teams, 2 81mm mortar HTs, 2 Sherm 105s, and no TRPs. Even with a balanced force, the attacker can still afford a good amount of arty. The scenario itself wasn't too difficult, but then I knew both force compositions and was playing against the AI.

Even after a very long barrage, the defenders in the village still put up a fight whereas in the arty experiment, the town was nearly gone.

The experiment's defenders only had remaining ~1 platoon worth of ambush units in front of the town, 2 tanks behind the town, and ~3 platoons spread out among a couple of flag points behind the town. The bombardment completely gutted any type of centralized defense, leaving the remainder as easy, isolated pickings. Well, ok the Panther may have been a bit of a challenge.

If there were no TRPs available to the attacker, the shells would have been much less accurate (even with direct LOS), and I don't think the town defenders would have been made completely combat ineffective the way they were. There were a good many broken units in scattered trees just outside the town to go along with the 100+ casualties.

Certainly not every scenario is going to be exactly balanced, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy playing the defender in that circumstance. One experimental (and somewhat unrealistic) scenario may not be enough to invalidate the idea of attackers having TRPs available, but at this point I'd lean against the idea. I also think the defender's TRPs should be limited to his own setup area. Covering a likely route of entry for the attackers with a TRP is one thing; being able to drop loads of ordnance on his setup area seems a bit gamey to me. Just MHO.

Whew! That was longer than I intended.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 07-03-2000).]

[Wolfe]

Hmmm. Just thought of something. The force purchases are currently limited for QBs (i.e. you can't buy all armor in a 'combined' scenario). That might be enough to limit excessive arty purchases. So maybe it won't be such a big deal after all.

- Chris