Weapon specific TRPs needed

[John Kettler]

Something else I noted in RoW II play is that there really needs to be some expansion work done on TRPs. Presently, a TRP can be targeted by any available indirect fire support asset, including onboard mortars which meet range requirements and do not move. This is convenient but inaccurate.

For example, an infantry unit which has just seized a position would immediately begin registering defensive mortar concentrations, but that is hardly the same as having the approaches zeroed in by 105s

or heavier. At a minimum, I believe that we need to differentiate between TRPs for 50-81mm mortar concentrations (possibly including 75mm arty for simplicity) and heavier stuff.

I further believe that indirect fire assets should come with TRPs as standard equipment, at the very least in defensive scenarios. I've fought battles in which my onboard mortars might as well have been infantry guns, for that was all I could do with them, the terrain being such that neither they nor their HQ could see into not one but a series of defiladed areas. My on-scene infantry could, though, and screamed for mortar support I couldn't provide. The result was that the foe was able to get into areas which my mortars would normally have either denied or made expensive to move through. No TRPs were provided, and both my fire responsiveness and effectiveness were severely affected, nearly costing me the game. And yes, I understand the scenario designer's dilemma, for given the present nature of TRPs, I could have created an excessively effective killing field otherwise, since my heavier assets would've been able to use the same TRPs so desperately needed by my mortars.

A mortar TRP is not the same as an artillery TRP. Each usually (not talking RVGK supereavy mortars controlled as artillery here) goes through its own command channels and is separately registered. I believe that this fundamental distinction needs to be reflected in upcoming games, CMBB if possible, and priced accordingly. What say the rest of you?

Regards,

John Kettler

[lucero1148]

Very good point and sensible. I think we've all had defensive battles where our squad mortar's were useless due to weather or terrain and having these unit specific TRP's would be plausible but only for defending units.

All best

Patrick

[athkatla]

As an ex MFC (Mortar Fire Controller) with the British Army (1969-1983) I too am a bit disillusioned with the representation of mortars in the game. I do realise that it is a WWII game but didn't they have MFC's then to call in Mortar Fire Missions. In my time, each Rifle Company had an MFC attached who would usually move with the Company Commander, and then when the Company made contact the MFC would be able to call in Mortar Fire support, and also Rifle Company NCO's were also trained to be able to call in fire support from the Mortar Section, should they be required to do so.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by athkatla:

As an ex MFC (Mortar Fire Controller) with the British Army (1969-1983) I too am a bit disillusioned with the representation of mortars in the game. I do realise that it is a WWII game but didn't they have MFC's then to call in Mortar Fire Missions. In my time, each Rifle Company had an MFC attached who would usually move with the Company Commander, and then when the Company made contact the MFC would be able to call in Mortar Fire support, and also Rifle Company NCO's were also trained to be able to call in fire support from the Mortar Section, should they be required to do so.

I would be surprised to hear they had a system where every company had access to someone like that in world war 2. After all, platoons still had their organic 2" mortars to do exactly this job then. Also, judging from the view memoirs I have read, they don't seem to mention that for the British Army at least. Having said that, I am a bit in the dark how observation was done for the 3" mortars. I know that the 4.2" mortars had their own FOOs, from a passage in Blackburn.

[athkatla]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by athkatla:

As an ex MFC (Mortar Fire Controller) with the British Army (1969-1983) I too am a bit disillusioned with the representation of mortars in the game. I do realise that it is a WWII game but didn't they have MFC's then to call in Mortar Fire Missions. In my time, each Rifle Company had an MFC attached who would usually move with the Company Commander, and then when the Company made contact the MFC would be able to call in Mortar Fire support, and also Rifle Company NCO's were also trained to be able to call in fire support from the Mortar Section, should they be required to do so.

I would be surprised to hear they had a system where every company had access to someone like that in world war 2. After all, platoons still had their organic 2" mortars to do exactly this job then. Also, judging from the view memoirs I have read, they don't seem to mention that for the British Army at least. Having said that, I am a bit in the dark how observation was done for the 3" mortars. I know that the 4.2" mortars had their own FOOs, from a passage in Blackburn.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by athkatla:

The thing that slightly pisses me off is that, for instance, in a scenario I was playing last night, I wanted my infantry to assault a hill some 150 yards to the front, I had a 2" mortar, but with no LOS to the small valley in front of the hill, so I wasn't able to put down smoke. Surely 2" mortars were fired in a "guestimate" sort of fashion, to lay smoke for infantry? I'm sure that they would have been able to look at a map, work out a suitable grid and give it their best shot, i.e. you know where you are, you know where the hill is, hurl some smoke in the general direction, and send the grunts charging through it!! Sounds like a plan to me!

Ah yes, you do come up against the Borg spotting syndrome though. If you allowed this in CMBO, you would have the problem that you can fire on something you don't see and should not know exactly where it is, but that you know is there because you are floating above the battlefield. To make up for it, those pesky German HMGs are not allowed to fire into the smoke you use to cover your advance either

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

A mortar TRP is not the same as an artillery TRP. Each usually (not talking RVGK supereavy mortars controlled as artillery here) goes through its own command channels and is separately registered. I believe that this fundamental distinction needs to be reflected in upcoming games, CMBB if possible, and priced accordingly. What say the rest of you?

This is the same thought I've had pretty much since CM came out.

Only thing I would add is the thought that the attackers should have some TRPs too. I suppose there should be more limitations on their placement as compared to defensive TRPs, but I haven't really thought that one through yet.

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Something else I noted in RoW II play is that there really needs to be some expansion work done on TRPs.

[snips]

At a minimum, I believe that we need to differentiate between TRPs for 50-81mm mortar concentrations (possibly including 75mm arty for simplicity) and heavier stuff.

[snips]

At the moment, the things you can purchase in CM:BO are FOs and TRPs, which are separate things; ammo is associated with an FO. There is no overt representation of the firing battery (troop, section, mortar baseplate position, whatever it is).

In real life, ammunition is a property of the firing battery, and TRPs are recorded by the battery, too.

The sort of scheme I would like to see is one where the off-table batteries are explicitly represented. FOs are associated with firing batteries; the same battery may have one or two FOs associated with it. If you don't have both the FOs for a battery on-table, you might find that the battery is firing a mission for the other guy somewhere else when you call for fire. Likewise, other calls on the battery's services might deplete the ammunition stocks you thought you had available. Having an overt representation of off-table batteries also means that the mechanisms for off-table and on-table indirect fire need hardly be different.

Some batteries may have no FOs associated with them, but may (probabilistically) be available for reinforcing fires (US and Commonwealth artillery especially should be able to call massive reinforcing fires in a tight spot).

TRPs should be associated with firing batteries, too, and a battery's FO's should be able to register additional TRPs during the course of the game. One point per battery should be the FDF task, on which the guns are laid when not firing other tasks, and for which response time is almost instant when called.

A third "flavour" of TRPs -- which should include lines as well as points, so that I can plot proper barrages -- should be available for planning programmed fires. The "creeping barrage" flavour of control line should be programmable with a start time, direction, and rate of movement, and each such planned task should be parameterisable for rate of fire and fuze type used. If the gun-bunnies are asked to do too much shooting at "burst" rate, they should suffer fatigue and reduce their rate accordingly.

Now, add in some rules covering the difference between different fuze types (superquick, DA, clockwork time, powder-train time) and distinguish between WP, BES and bursting smoke, and I think I'd be very happy with the artillery part of the game.

All the best,

John "Son of a Gunner" Salt.

[John Kettler]

Precisely the sort of discussion I'd hoped for!

Regards,

John Kettler