CM2 opening arty barages

[coe]

What do you think of this, to assume an

opening arty barrage, the defensive player

sets up and then without really being able

to see the defensive player, the attacking

player can call down an opening arty barrage

(that might go on for one or two minutes)...

on suspected positions...this would kinda

model the pre-attack artillery?

[[CoFR]Archangel]

As long as points given to defense take it into account. The reason that comes to mind was an arty pounding I took last night, from something big, 150 or greater.

My guys were at least able to seek cover before all hell hit, (although one bunch ran into a hit). I guess what I am saying is that if the AI allows the defense to seek cover, it might be ok.

[CoFR]Archangel

[Barticus]

I think it's a good idea, as long as the attacker has to pay for the barrage, and can only buy them during assaults. The only problem would be in an urban setting. The attacker could probably afford to flatten nearly every building near an objective flag and not have to commit a single leg/armour unit.

I guess this could be offset by making the preliminary barrage even more expensive than an FO directing guns of similar calibre. (say 50% more expensive?)

My 2 pfarthings worth.

Bart

[WWB]

I think opening barrages are a must for CM2. What would be really cool, and quite possibly realistic, would be for the player to define an unmodifiable fire-plan before the game starts. I think preplotted strikes should be, if anything, cheaper. And moreover, they should not be bought as FOs but as 'Turns of Fire.'

I.e. Bombard this location on turns 1 to 3, stop, then bombard this location from turns 5 to 7, etc.

I also would not mind seeing the ability for scenario designers to 'force' air strikes on a specific turn. One major design difficulty now is that airstrikes can oftentimes unbalance a scenario because their effects are so random.

WWB

[coe]

Well if it is a true prep barrage, it might be more like unguided indirect fire. Thus the shells would be scattered more. We're not talking about FO directed fire missions we're talking general bombard the front type of deal. I mean theoretically it could kill some troops, churn up some guns, and maybe blast a few holes in barbed wire and maybe even turn some buildings to rubble (which can

make street-fighting even more hellish)

At the same time the trench/bunker system would have to be really effective so that soldiers can hide out.

I'm not envisioning having to pay for it because it might be inherent in the scenario/attack style

[Schrullenhaft]

One problem with this, as others have mentioned, is that it can severely unbalance a scenario/QB.

Preparatory barrages were absolutely common with the Soviets in their planned assaults. However a preparatory barrage in an area as small as some maps might be (especially urban ones) is a bit too advantageous for the attacker. The Soviets generally pounded a large area with their pre-assault barrages (trying to disrupt as much as possible - combat and rear-echelon units). With CM you're concerned with one, comparatively, small area of the battle and therefore you can concentrate your fire to even higher levels (assuming that pre-assault barrages have the accuracy of an on-board FO).

As others have suggested, I think that there should be a very high 'general-ness' to the impact area of the barrage, so it can't be concentrated to an unrealistic point (something almost like Nebelwerfers are currently in CM, but of varying Soviet field calibers of course). That and maybe limiting them to larger scenarios (over 2000+ points ?). They were common tactics for Soviet artillery, so they shouldn't be too expensive, but including them in smaller scenarios can be unbalancing. Depending on its effectiveness, this will be hard to find a price-point that is balanced.

[WWB]

I would actually perfer to see them as a scenario designer option, which takes price-balancing out of the equation.

And if they include all the elements of a good trench system, mainly nearly arty-proof dugouts, they will not be terribly effective.

For example, during WW I, at the Somme, the British bombarded the Germans for 3 days straight with little effect, mainly due to the 30 foot deep dugouts the Germans were hiding out in.

I don't think the prep barrages should be any less accurate than a target wide order; they were firing on known & observed points generally. Possibly, the rate of fire might need to be slowed, to reflect the lenghthly aspects of this.

Also, this would be a much more common tactic with rocket arty, which was generally fired in battalion strength right before the troops went over the top.

WWB

[Chupacabra]

Preperatory barrages are outside of CM's scale, really. They're assumed to have already happened. It's not something you can really simulate in a QB, but then QBs aren't meant to be historical anyway.

[Xavier]

Good idea !

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

I think opening barrages are a must for CM2. What would be really cool, and quite possibly realistic, would be for the player to define an unmodifiable fire-plan before the game starts. I think preplotted strikes should be, if anything, cheaper. And moreover, they should not be bought as FOs but as 'Turns of Fire.'

I.e. Bombard this location on turns 1 to 3, stop, then bombard this location from turns 5 to 7, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great ideas! I think I like the way these work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also would not mind seeing the ability for scenario designers to 'force' air strikes on a specific turn. One major design difficulty now is that airstrikes can oftentimes unbalance a scenario because their effects are so random.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I think I understand what BTS was driving at when they programmed airstrikes as they did, I wonder if they didn't possibly make it a little too wild-card. Although ground support from the air was definitely pretty erratic in mid-1944, it improved as the war wore on.

Not sure what the proper balance is. I never use it myself, which is maybe the effect that BTS is gunning for, since close support really wasn't all that common in the ETO. Most of the targets, even for tactical airpower, would be off the CM map.

Michael