Top Ten Reasons Artillery is Poorly Modelled

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Aaron:

A similar point can be made about item #8 (IG firing indirect). My understanding is that IGs was what the 2 tube 75mm Howitzer FO were.

IIMU that that is correct. The 2-tube 150mm FOO is for a sIG33 battery.

[-E]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I nearly coughed up my lunch to read the mortars are 'worthless'!

What did you have for lunch? (forum members need to know, in order to make an informed decision on whether to pursue this form of irritation).

[Lumbergh]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes. You have an irrational hatred of slide rules.

Frankly, your kind isn't wanted here.

Whose "kind", I wonder? New CM customers to spread the word on a great game? Enthusiastic new players with common sense?

Slide rule haters, of course. Every few months another one appears, talking about the wonders of the latest IBM hole-punch machine, a smaller Babbage-engine, or whatever. </font>

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Becket:

:eek: :eek: :eek: [/QB]

Perhaps someone could explain to me the logic of

stripping mortars of their indirect fire capability

unless a HQ unit is nearby, and that HQ has to have

LOS to the target? Did the mortarmen and artillerymen

somehow lose their pre-printed sheets telling them

the elevation necessary to get x range?

[ February 06, 2003, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[X-00]

First, let me apologize for my poor editing. I posted the original post after a 20 hour day in the sandbox which, is never a good idea.

11. Crest restrictions

12. Fuzing (time fire, ricochet fire, mine effect)

13. Barrages in addition to simple concentrations

14. Different national arty command doctrines

15. Difference between direct support, general support and reinforcing roles

16. DF(SOS) (later called FDF) tasks

17. TOT concentrations

18. Lack of elevated OPs e.g. in churches

19. Lack of distinction between WP, BES and bursting smoke shell

20. Lack of trenches with overhead cover and excessive effectiveness of VT

John, perhaps we need a top twenty. But in my opinion the sheaf, pricing and unit of fire are the most important.

Given that a Soviet barrage could be a minimum of 45 turns and as long as 120 turns, setting it up at post barrage makes the most sense. A good way to do that is just design a scenario with total defensive positions and troops in place, then allocate however many batteries you want to the barrage, assign maximum ammo, then fly away. Towards the end of the scenario, save it, then use it as the template for an assault scenario. If there wasn't enough ammo in the game, then make the next design another barrage. Once you have the barrage down for the assigned time, save, then use as the assault scenario

It is interesting how many people try to separate the barrage from manuever. This reveals a misunderstanding of how artillery and maneuver were are are integrated.

Maneuver occurs/occured during the barrage. The infantry/armor does not sit back watch the show, wait for it to finish and then start their walk/drive to the green fields beyond. To the contrary, they take advantage of the barrage's suppressive effects. The period we're dealing with was 1943/4/5 not 1915.

Anyway, thanks for the input. Hopefully some of this can be fixed in future patches. Seems to me TRPs, pricing can be fixed rather easily. The sheaf however is what requires the most work.

Aloha

X

[ February 07, 2003, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: X-00 ]

[Caesar]

Posted by Ryan Crierie

Perhaps someone could explain to me the logic of

stripping mortars of their indirect fire capability

unless a HQ unit is nearby, and that HQ has to have

LOS to the target? Did the mortarmen and artillerymen

somehow lose their pre-printed sheets telling them

the elevation necessary to get x range?

AFAIK, if you do not move your mortars then they may make use of target reference points. If these are not used then they would need some sort of spotter i.e. the HQ.

How else would they know even to fire, let alone where to aim?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Perhaps someone could explain to me the logic of stripping mortars of their indirect fire capability unless a HQ unit is nearby, and that HQ has to have LOS to the target? Did the mortarmen and artillerymen somehow lose their pre-printed sheets telling them the elevation necessary to get x range?

Simple, the reason is that a real life mortarman is one of the beta-testers, and he said so. Once the mortar moves, it has to register again. Which it does, just not within the CM battle. If you don't move your mortar, it still fires on TRPs.

[SgtMuhammed]

That would be a great mod. If you have ever seen mortars getting set up it is one of the funniest things in the military. Ask a mortarman about the chicken dance the section leader does while placing the aiming stakes.

The idea that mortars would ever just start lobbing rounds without a call for fire from a spotter, in this case an HQ with commo, is at best missinformed. My only complaint is how near the mortar has to be. It is fine when using things like the 50mm but once you move to 81s and above the LOS of the spotting unit is often within the minimum range of the mortar.

I think a better system for mortars would be to have the plt hqs be in commo with the company HQ which would be in contact with the Mortars. This would allow the mortars to fire on targets that the Platoons can see without having to be part of the platoon and better reflects the actual situation.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sgtgoody:

I think a better system for mortars would be to have the plt hqs be in commo with the company HQ which would be in contact with the Mortars. This would allow the mortars to fire on targets that the Platoons can see without having to be part of the platoon and better reflects the actual situation.

I agree that would be a good system, but how would this work in a WW2 environment, where handheld radios were rare, and well-working handheld radios for platoon commanders were slightly more rare than rocking-horse dung? You are going into a level of communication simulation that CM does not do. I hope that this will be done for the engine rewrite (makes note to self to raise it with BFC). Ideally we would have some armies with, some without handheld radios, with chances that the handhelds are not working depending on weather/terrain in a battle, and whatnot. An all-singing, all-dancing simulation of intra-company comms. Call it Combat Mission - Beyond Static Noise, or Combat Mission - My Runner Saved the Day.

[SgtMuhammed]

This is why you would have to have the platoon HQ be the link to the CO. The handheld radios were indeed rare compared to today but every Lt. had an RTO with him. The handheld models were for squads and outposts. Today individual Squadleaders can call for fire but the lowest this would have gone in WWII would have been the platoon level.

[Cyrano]

First of all, let me say I enjoyed reading X-00's original post. I found it informative and to the point. I will also note that his #6 point is one I have wondered about since trying to first understand CM:BO. Further, I have recently become very angry with "Tour of Duty's" handling of mortar fire and have done a fair amount of reading on the topic of late, albeit in a later era.

That said, are there any board or (more relevantly) miniatures games that have successfully modelled artillery at the level of detail envisioned by this post? I can only speak to Command Decision and a few homebrew games I got dragged into over the years and none seemed (IMHO) as detailed as even CM:BO (a few extra +1's on a CRT does not constitute detail, I'm talking about mechanics.) I get as rankled as the next guy about the difficulty in using mortars in both CM games, but I wonder if anyone else has shown a "better way" that strikes a better balance between reality and playability.

...makes a body all that much more eager for CM2.

Regards,

Jim

"Cyrano"

[Guest konrad]

I wish that reality will be so clear,comprehensive and enjoyable,how CMBB is.

regards

konrad

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Cyrano:

[snips]That said, are there any board or (more relevantly) miniatures games that have successfully modelled artillery at the level of detail envisioned by this post? [snips]

I think we can take it as a reasonably good rule of thumb that the modelling of field artillery in most wargames rules is crap. Partly I attribute this to the fact that gunners tend not to write wargames; the last wargame written by a gunner I can think of was SPI's "Grunt", which was mainly about infantry.

The usual run of WW2 wargames seem to concentrate on tanks first, infantry next, artillery third and engineers a poor fourth, if at all.

As far as I am aware, no wargame currently in print does a really first-class job of modelling artillery. Probably the best I have seen for coverage, if not detail, is the WRG armnour & infantry set of minatures rules, which acknowledges the difference between direct and general support, impromptu and planned fires, makes a nod in the direction of different national arty command doctrines and IIRC has something about crest restrictions.

As a mechanism, I like the spotting-rounds procedure in "Squad Leader", which survived with additional complications into ASL. The use of two "spotting round" counters can be thought of as analagous to splitting a long and a short bracket on a target before calling for FFE.

All the best,

John.

[SgtMuhammed]

It would be nice to have your spotter actually walk rounds. They could add wav files to have them make corrections till that blessed call of "Drop five-zero, Fire for effect, over."

[ February 07, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

[tar]

As a mechanism, I like the spotting-rounds procedure in "Squad Leader", which survived with additional complications into ASL. The use of two "spotting round" counters can be thought of as analagous to splitting a long and a short bracket on a target before calling for FFE.

For a detailed artillery procedure, surely nothing can top the artillery rules in The Gamer's Tactical Combat Series (TCS) version 1 and 2. General and direct support, called fire delays, spotting round adjustment (variable number), 4 types of round concentration patterens. The only problem is that plotting the fall of individual rounds by hand was way too daunting a task to be playable.

[Battlefront.com]

X-00,

First off, thanks for your informed post. I must say that very little of it is news to us. The decisions made for CMBO regarding artillery were limited by the amount of time we had to develop everything equally well. CMBB was then limited by this + previous code decisions that were made. Rember, CMBB represents 5 years worth of development. We obviously spent that time developing the elements we thought were more important for CM's scale, namely infantry and armor based combat (which includes the data, orders, mechanics, etc.).

That doesn't mean artillery is unimportant to the battlefield (it absolutely is important), but that when one looks at CM's scale it is absolutely the second least important of the four elements; infantry, vehicles, artillery, and airpower.

The reason for order of importance here should be self evident. It is practical and realistic to play an infantry only battle, or an armor only one. It is not at all realistic to play a battle with just artillery, nor would it be any fun even if it were possible. So where should we, the developers with limited time and resources, pay the most attention to? That which is in every single battle or that which might be in a battle? That which takes and holds ground, or that which aids the elements that take and hold ground? In a perfect world we would be able to simulate everything 100%, but this world is imperfect.

On an up note the new engine will allow us to do two things:

1. Allow a clean slate to make major, fundamental changes to how the game works, yet at the same time allowing the past 5 years of modeling to be carried over.

2. Allow us to do a MUCH more detailed simulation of artillery.

Having said all that, I will briefly comment on your points:

A. Many will ferociously argue, “Allied Artillery was an operational tool beyond the scope of the game”. Hogwash.

Not hogwash at all. Mostly because you misunderstand the use of "operational" in the sense of CM's "tactical" scope. Artillery's biggest contribution to combat was to crush organized attacks or defensive positions. The best example of this was the Soviet's employment of artillery for the Bagration offensive. Artillery, practically alone, eliminated the frontline positions for huge sections of front. Cobra is a great example on the Western Front.

You could argue that these are "tactical" in nature, and to some extent you would be correct. But in CM's scope, it is incorrect. Or at least, not relevant. Nobody would find value in sitting through 20 - 180 turns of one sided action, and therefore it has no practical tactical value to a game like CM.

While these comments reflect his view of American artillery, they surely reflect the opinion of many Soviet infantry regiment and battalion commanders who closely hugged barrages that suppressed the MG42, enemy ATGs and artillery thus keeping them and their soldiers alive.

Sure, but by that way of thinking you can say that strategic bombing of oil fields, which in turn reduced the operational and tactical effectiveness of Axis supply and frontline, could be considered relevant to the tactical battle. In short, nothing happens in a vacuum. What is important is to focus on what is relevant for a CM sized battle.

The size and reliance of the Red Army on artillery was much higher than any other power during the war.

Correct. But the extreme uses of it were reserved for breakthrough operations. And they were wildly successfull at that.

During the attack the Soviet maneuver elements were supported by a steady drumbeat of fire, which frankly is not modeled in the game.

Incorrect. You can simulate this without any difficulty in CM. Perhaps not perfectly, but it is incorrect to say it is "not modeled".

1. Sheaf:

a. Orientation: Is invariably converged parallel to line of advance (this can be compensated for by playing N-S maps i.e. rotating the sheaf 90 degrees)

b. Size: Too, small. Should range from 200 (Width) x 200 (Depth) for a 105 battalion to 400 x 200 8 inch. Artillery sheafs are explained well here:

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/sheafs.html

c. Rate of Fire/Density: A 105mm howitzer has a max effective rate of fire of 10 rounds a minute (for 3-4 minutes), 4 rounds a minute sustained. A 155mm howitzer max ROF 8-6, sustained 4-3. Mortars have much higher rates of fire. Additionally, artillery was programmed to fire at intervals to length the time of suppression (1 round a minute, or two rounds a minute).

Agreed. Fire patterns are not simulated in the amount of detail they should be. One can argue how much effect that has on a typical CMBB battle though. I would argue it is quite small. For example, I am playing a battle right now where little artillery is available and LOS is highly restricted. Therefore, this has little to no impact on the battle I am playing. This speaks to the point I made above about importance of correct prioritization of development resources. Infantry first, armor second, artillery third, air fourth.

2. Unit of Purchase/Fire: The standard firing unit during WWII was the battalion (12-18 tubes allies, 12-9 Germans). Batteries fired independently rarely.

Not true. Because of the shortage of tubes, shortage of ammo, shortage of FOs, and generally overwhelming calls for artillery... penny packeting of artillery assets was the norm.

It they fired as batteries it was usually an act of desperation or poor planning.

According to accademic lessons in the artillery schools... true. In the field? Not necessarily. More often than not it was due to FUBAR.

Firing as batteries is very inefficient. A battalion firing 1 round per tube (12 rounds) is much more effective than a battery firing 6 rounds per tube (24 rounds). Every artillery officer, regardless of nationality has this hammered into him as a subaltern!

Note where this was "hammered" into him... the classroom. In the field things were often different. I am not saying that this means it was more effecient, but rather that it was more practical and therefore more common.

Plus, not all FOs in CM represent batteries in the Artillery Regiment. Some represent the 2 guns located in the Heavy Weapons Company for example. The two guns that would, I might add, be the most likely to fire on targets during a CM sized battle.

3. Purchase Cost/Rarity/Ammunition Loads: Lacks a reasonable rationale. In both BO and BB German artillery get all the price breaks. In BO the Germans got the cost break because Allies had to pay a responsiveness tax. In BB there is no responsiveness tax.

Incorrect. Soviet artillery is generally cheaper per tube/round than German stuff. However, this changes around 1943 (forget when exactly) when Soviet artillery flexibility increased rather dramatically.

Rarity doesn’t give the Russki a break despite the fact that the outnumbered the Germans by an order of magnitude at the points of attack, and didn’t have strategic and interdiction bombing, nor partisans disrupting Soviet ammunition production or delivery.

Rarity is based on how many guns were available to that given formation, not how many were available front wide. This was covered in another thread in great detail and it was shown quite conclusively that we modeled things correctly.

4. Inability to Shift From Known Point. In CM delay in fire is tied the size of the correction, i.e. any correction bigger than 100m results in a completely new fire mission. This is completely wrong headed and doesn’t reflect reality in anyway shape or form.

I agree that this isn't as good as it should be. However, since this is direct spotting you are talking about it was felt that the greater the delta the more the FO would have to rely upon calculations than eyeballing it.

5. TRPs/Targets. Not available to either side in a ME, or the attacker in attacks or assaults. Again this doesn’t reflect reality in anyway shape or form.

Correct... Meeting Engagements do not reflect reeality in any shape or form Theerefore, everything that follows from that is by definition not realistic.

6. For allies, no intelligence on enemy dispositions prior to fire planning. The Amis, Brits, Russians didn’t attack blind per CM SOP. On the west front the allies had complete air supremacy and the piper cub was ubiquitous. On the east front the Russians were superb tactical patrollers/infiltrators and had partisans to help out. Should a complete picture be available? No. But some semblance of a picture is required for realistic fire planning. This is a QB complaint, and may be difficult to code.

Note that this has nothing what so ever to do with artillery any more than it does with infantry, vehicles, or air. Some degree of battlefield intel should be available beyond the Briefing depending on circumstances. However, this was not something we were capable of adding in CMBO or CMBB for coding reasons. It will be done for the new engine for sure.

7. One target per unit for pre-planned bombardments. This tied with point number three above is completely ahistorical and really hurts the Russian player.

I don't agree. The Soviets had a range of targets preplanned, but they did not necessarily switch off between them within the CM's scope. The tended to allocate tubes per target and blaze away on them. Then they would stop and blaze away on different targets. This can be simulated in CMBB with multiple batteries and TRPs. That is, if you want to simulate a rather significant offensive action since this is totally not what happened for small scale engagements under normal circumstances.

8. Onboard Infantry (Howitzer) Guns, mountain guns and other low velocity guns no able to fire indirectly on the map. The infantry guns were extremely low caliber (short barreled) and the crews were trained at hitting dead space.

If they are to be used as indirect fire elements there should be FOs on the map not guns. The guns should not be so danged close to the front in the first place, so by default they should be offmap more often than not.

9. U.S. officers and to a lesser extent British officers, particularly Company Commanders unable to call in fire. A CMBO complaint

True enough. This is one of the biggest limitations we had with the FO system. Not to be repeated with the new engine.

10. The nonsensical target drift, and sheaf spread when artillery falls out of LOS. Believe the FO spotting correcting routine may be a bug.

Not a bug. This has been looked into many times before. If you fire without LOS or TRP then your guns could be off by hundreds of meters and you wouldn't know it until you got into LOS. Charles had some firing data somewhere (I don't have it) that showed something like the average mean error being close to 250m off target. This is really not at all bad from a gunnery standpoint, but if you are trying to hit a small target... well... it frankly sucks but is realistic.

To reiterate, CMBB nor CMBO before it are bad games. But, Artillery is and was poorly modeled.

After tackling your points above, I challenge the use of the word "poor". Not modeled as well as infantry or vehicles? I'll go along with that. But compared to other wargames I am familiar with, I would say CM's artillery is "well above average".

In 1945, the same regiment attacked into Berlin with one battalion up front supported by: 92 76mm guns (23 batteries), 40 122mm howitzers (4 batteries), 36 120mm mortars, 28 122mm guns (7 batteries), 50 203mm howitzers (12 batteries) and 12 280mm mortars (3 batteries).

The game does not reflect this tactical reality.

Sure it does. What is preventing you from buying this amount of artillery in CMBB? Go into the Editor and knock yourself out. Won't be a fun battle to play out at all, but it can be done.

Steve

[Tero]

Lets widen the "big boys" frame of reference a bit. This is beginning to be a bit too German/Soviet/US-centric to be holistic and universally true.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sure, but by that way of thinking you can say that strategic bombing of oil fields, which in turn reduced the operational and tactical effectiveness of Axis supply and frontline,

You better make that German/central European.

But the extreme uses of it were reserved for breakthrough operations. And they were wildly successfull at that.

Depends what is your scope for wildly succesfull.

b. Size: Too, small.....

c. Rate of Fire/Density:.....

That is generalizing and focusing on the big boys and their ways. For the Finnish arty practises the CM scope the sheaf is too big and the density way too low. Plus the method of firing is wrong. Instead of plain vanilla barrages the firing mode should be plain vanilla fire strike of X rounds.

One can argue how much effect that has on a typical CMBB battle though. I would argue it is quite small.

I would argue the effect is quite significant. Depending on whose artillery doctrine you are using as your frame of reference.

For example, I am playing a battle right now where little artillery is available and LOS is highly restricted. Therefore, this has little to no impact on the battle I am playing.

That is your subjective opinion.

Not true. Because of the shortage of tubes, shortage of ammo, shortage of FOs, and generally overwhelming calls for artillery... penny packeting of artillery assets was the norm.

Again, depends what is your frame of reference. I would agree penny packeting artillery assets was the norm if you are talking about the limitations in the allocated rounds per fire mission or some such. Or when there historically there simply was nothing else but a single battery available for support.

When you are talking about detaching single batteries as dedicated fire support assets as a norm then you are adhering to the Anglo-American frame of reference.

Firing as batteries is very inefficient. A battalion firing 1 round per tube (12 rounds) is much more effective than a battery firing 6 rounds per tube (24 rounds). Every artillery officer, regardless of nationality has this hammered into him as a subaltern!

Are you assuming a battalion is more accurate than a battery ?

This might come as a big surprise to you but at least the Finnish subalterns were hammered that a battery firing 24 rounds is more effective than a battalion firing 12 rounds. By the same token a battalion firing 24 rounds was more effective than a battery firing 12 rounds.

The Finnish artillery could use a 100m x 100m converging sheaf for a single battery as easily as for a battalion.

Note where this was "hammered" into him... the classroom. In the field things were often different. I am not saying that this means it was more effecient, but rather that it was more practical and therefore more common.

Again, depends what you use as a frame of reference. It may have been more practical and therefore more common for the Anglo-American forces but that does not apply for example to the Finnish army.

Plus, not all FOs in CM represent batteries in the Artillery Regiment. Some represent the 2 guns located in the Heavy Weapons Company for example. The two guns that would, I might add, be the most likely to fire on targets during a CM sized battle.

And this disregards the Finnish practises and puts

them in a disadvantage because the CM modelling assumes Battalion/Division assests were organizationally slower to respond in general in a CM scale battle.

Mind you, I've had a Soviet 152mm FO get a 27min delay (on a target in LOS to boot !!!) in a 25min battle. I do not rightly know if that is realistic or not by judging by the effect it had on the game I'd say it was less than realistic.

Soviet artillery is generally cheaper per tube/round than German stuff. However, this changes around 1943 (forget when exactly) when Soviet artillery flexibility increased rather dramatically.

The ammo load out for the Soviets is ahistorically small. 20-25 rounds for a 152mm battery in an assault scenario is way too small compared to what they churned out in real life.

However, since this is direct spotting you are talking about it was felt that the greater the delta the more the FO would have to rely upon calculations than eyeballing it.

This however is not how the real life procedures were adversely affected. A 100m (or even a 500m for that matter) shift does not mean they have to use several minutes calculating the "new" firing solution.

If you fire without LOS or TRP then your guns could be off by hundreds of meters and you wouldn't know it until you got into LOS.

Depends on the topographical data available, the effectiveness of your procedures and the proficiency of your troops.

Charles had some firing data somewhere (I don't have it) that showed something like the average mean error being close to 250m off target.

This may have been relevant in CMBO but not in CMBB since the Anglo-American and German procedures are not the norm in the Eastern Front scale.

This is really not at all bad from a gunnery standpoint, but if you are trying to hit a small target... well... it frankly sucks but is realistic.

It sucks to be realistic but you are using the wrong frame of reference.

If the Anglo-American (and even German) artillery was off by 250m on average when not having LOS on the target point it does not mean the the deviation was always 250m, any deviation occured by default or that it was even a norm for some artillery branches to be affected by it to this kind of deviation to a significant degree.

[JonS]

Steve,

Let me begin with this:

Originally posted by Steve:

On an up note the new engine will allow us to do two things:

1. Allow a clean slate to make major, fundamental changes to how the game works, yet at the same time allowing the past 5 years of modeling to be carried over.

2. Allow us to do a MUCH more detailed simulation of artillery.

Jon says: Huzzah!

…Artillery's biggest contribution to combat was to crush organized attacks or defensive positions. The best example of this was the Soviet's employment of artillery for the Bagration offensive. Artillery, practically alone, eliminated the frontline positions for huge sections of front. Cobra is a great example on the Western Front.

You could argue that these are "tactical" in nature, and to some extent you would be correct. But in CM's scope, it is incorrect. Or at least, not relevant…

Organised counter-attacks, maybe? That was certainly one of the key uses that the British put the RA to.

Describing artillery as ‘crushing’ anything indicates a fairly basic misunderstanding of what artillery can – and more importantly can’t - do. Artillery is great for suppression, but not so great at destruction of the enemy (see: The Somme).

Of course, given enough time, large calibre guns, and sufficient ammunition, artillery can destroy pretty much anything, but I’m happy with that being ‘outside the scope.’ What I’m uncomfortable with, though, is having the suppression/neutralisation capability of artillery misunderstood. Suppression is – or should be – the prime goal of field artillery (i.e. 25-pr., 105mm, 76.2mm in the various armies). As it stands, this isn’t overly well modelled, IMHO. (I'm not referring to the blast values here)

A good fireplan isn’t a stand-alone entity, which you seem to regard it as with this comment:

…Nobody would find value in sitting through 20 - 180 turns of one sided action, and therefore it has no practical tactical value to a game like CM...

Artillery is part of the combined arms battle, and treating it as something separate does it a major disservice. In an attack the artillery should be used to assist the infantry forward, and the infantry should be moving forward while the fireplan is in progress. If a player ignores this precept, well then they probably will have a boring and/or unsuccessful game/attack. But that is the fault of the player, not the artillery.

Also, I believe the 8th Airforce, rather than 1st Army artillery was mostly responsible for the Cobra carnage

Sure, but by that way of thinking you can say that strategic bombing of oil fields, which in turn reduced the operational and tactical effectiveness of Axis supply and frontline, could be considered relevant to the tactical battle. In short, nothing happens in a vacuum. What is important is to focus on what is relevant for a CM sized battle.

The strat bombing example seems a little out of left field :confused: I understand the reference, but you seem to have taken it to a rather illogical extreme. The focus comment is certainly appropriate, I guess where people differ is where that focus should be centred or aimed (horses anyone? )

During the attack the Soviet maneuver elements were supported by a steady drumbeat of fire, which frankly is not modeled in the game. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Incorrect. You can simulate this without any difficulty in CM. Perhaps not perfectly, but it is incorrect to say it is "not modeled".

</font>

[Caesar]

What is the rationale for TRPs not being available to the attacker? I would have thought that an attack could have pre-ranged the guns prior to the battle. In most of the battles (well operations really) that I have read up on the attacker not the defender is the one that opens up with the arty. In fact I have rarely read much about the defender's arty usage at all.

Could not the TRPs been available to the attacker even if it was at a greater cost or limited to how deep it may be placed etc. Note, I guess these questions now relate more to the next engine as the current game is finished.

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Caesar:

What is the rationale for TRPs not being available to the attacker?

I'm currently playing an assault scenario and i've TRPs at my disposal.

[Mikko H.]

Mortars are WORTHLESS in CMBO and CMBB, especially mortar HTs, since you have to have them next to a command unit that has LOS to the target....

Uh... Just yesterday, three rounds from a 81 mm mortar saved my day by driving the enemy infantry platoon from the victory flag. Whatever is worthless, it's not the mortars.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Once the mortar moves, it has to register again. Which it does, just not within the CM battle.

At least for the überFinnish mortars there was no need to register within the limits of the CM battle.

And apparently the Germans too

From Handbook on German Forces

WAR DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL MANUAL TM-E 30-451

CHAPTER IV TACTICS

3. Combat in Woods

From Finnish troops, the Germans learned a successful method of using mortars in woods. The mortar observers, accompanied by a telephone operator, move with the advanced element. The line back to the mortar crew is exactly 200 yards long. One man is detailed to see that the line does not get hung on the way and as far as possible runs in a straight line. When the advanced element contacts the enemy, the observer judges the distance from himself to the target and adds the 200 yards to the mortar range. Bracketing of fire for adjustment is considered too dangerous because of the close proximity of friend and foe.

It boils down to the level of topographical preparations.

Incidentaly, in which army does/did the mortarman/playtester serve ?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

It boils down to the level of topographical preparations.

Can we just agree that it boils down to:

a) having a phone line

the 1943 handbook being correct

c) the practice being implemented in all of the Wehrmacht, not just the funny bits hanging about in Finland?

Also, at the moment you can make an HQ your observation team, and you do get the same effect, albeit not at the 200m distance (no idea what the maximum would be if you have a command range bonus - 50m?).

What you describe has zero to do with topographical preparations, since it is observed fire, directed by Mk.I eyeball. Which is not what was being talked about. Completely different issue. You don't even need a map for this.

Originally posted by Tero:

Incidentaly, in which army does/did the mortarman/playtester serve ?

US.

[Caesar]

Posted by Thin Red Line

I'm currently playing an assault scenario and i've TRPs at my disposal.

I meant for quick battles. No doubt the scenario designer decided that you should have some. On attack and for meeting engagements you get no fortification points and that is the section where the TRPs are located.

I assume that there is a reason for not allowing them (it seems reasonable for meeting engagements), heck it mught even be a simple matter of the game mechanics making it too difficult to allow. If not, I was wondering what the reason was.

[ February 10, 2003, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Can we just agree that it boils down to:

a) having a phone line

Which was of course very scarse in most armies.

the 1943 handbook being correct

What was being described was the bare essentials of the Finnish procedure. The real procedure was more versatile.

c) the practice being implemented in all of the Wehrmacht, not just the funny bits hanging about in Finland?

I believe these "funny bits" which made it all the way to the US Army manual were the guys who hung around the Hürtgen Forest.

Also, at the moment you can make an HQ your observation team, and you do get the same effect, albeit not at the 200m distance (no idea what the maximum would be if you have a command range bonus - 50m?).

What you describe has zero to do with topographical preparations, since it is observed fire, directed by Mk.I eyeball. Which is not what was being talked about. Completely different issue. You don't even need a map for this.

My point is against the supposed need for the mortars to register once they move. Sorry, I was perhaps a bit unclear about that.

The phoneline trick can be used. But IF it can not be used THEN it does boil down to the topographical data the force has at its disposal. If you have an accurate 1:20 000 map and you are certain where your mortars are set up you do not need to register.

Incidentaly, in which army does/did the mortarman/playtester serve ?] US.

Can't say I am surprised.