Assigning artillery to spotters

[Anton]

Hello, all

As I understand, a piece of artillery is assigned to the unit (spotter) that the user selected before entering the bombardment screen, but what happens if I shift an existing artillery mission from another spotter?

Is there a way to check which artillery unit is assigned to which spotter so as to keep the artillery units controlled by the most appropriate spotters, do I have to remember the assignments?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Anton

Hello, all

As I understand, a piece of artillery is assigned to the unit (spotter) that the user selected before entering the bombardment screen, but what happens if I shift an existing artillery mission from another spotter?

If you shift the fire mission with a spotter THAT becomes your new spotter for that fire mission. By using that new spotter to shift fire you have put him in control of it

Originally Posted by Anton

Is there a way to check which artillery unit is assigned to which spotter so as to keep the artillery units controlled by the most appropriate spotters, do I have to remember the assignments?

There is nothing that reports spotter X is controlling fire mission Y so yes, if you use more than one spotter you have to keep track yourself but it's really just a matter of keeping the spotter with the best view of the target as the one that shifts fire

[Anton]

Originally Posted by DRG

If you shift the fire mission with a spotter THAT becomes your new spotter for that fire mission. By using that new spotter to shift fire you have put him in control of it

I see. What happens in the spotter is killed? Does accuracy depend on who has been the spotter during the pre-mission delay or on the active spotter at the moment the salvo is delivered?

Suppose I planned a mission from the HQ with the standard 3.3-turn delay, and only in the third turn did my observer team manage to gain a height commanding a good view of the enemy. Should I hurry to the Bombardment screen and reassign the existing mission to the observers by a small shift, even at the expense of a short extra delay? Will it increase the accuracy of a) this mission or b) of the following repeat missions, supposedly due to the spotter's noting where the shots land and reporting it back for correction?

Originally Posted by DRG

There is nothing that reports spotter X is controlling fire mission Y so yes, if you use more than one spotter you have to keep track yourself but it's really just a matter of keeping the spotter with the best view of the target as the one that shifts fire

Understood, but this is quite inconvenient because one must take utmost care in ensuring that one orders repeat missions and shifts existing ones on behalf of the right spotter.

With several active spotters and many artillery units, it means that the user must cycle through his spotters, which is not easy, opening the bombardment screen for each and giving orders to that spotter's artillery units. It would be much better if shifts and repeat missions for all artillery could be managed in a single visit to the Bombardment screen, without the risk of choosing the wrong spotter or the wrong artillery unit during the more tedious procedure required in the current version.

IMHO, spotters-artillery assignments should be

1. transparent, i.e. the user should be able to see which spotters are currently working with which artillery, and
2. stable, i.e. it shouldn't be so easy accidentally to mix them up while correcting or repeating existing missions.

[jivemi]

If the spotter is killed you'll get a message: "Spotter has no LOS" and the rounds won't fall so accurately. (It's difficult to see things clearly from Valhalla.) The last spotter who assigns or shifts the fire mission or airstrike is the one who determines LOS to the target and therefore accuracy IIRC.

Yes, technically speaking it can be inconvenient to keep track of multiple spotters. Practically speaking though most battles it hardly comes up; usually it's either the HQ or dedicated FO that does most or all of the spotting. If you're keen on using combat "0" units to adjust fire then it's more complex, but even so you can shift between Bombardment and Battle Screen to check which leaders have LOS to a particular target and which artillery gun, battery or aircraft has a nearby plot.

Most games I don't bother with frontline leaders in that role--putting them in view of the enemy can be deleterious to their health--and my spotter (HQ or FO) is tucked away safely in the rear. Just about all bombardment missions will have lower accuracy, but that doesn't seem to affect gameplay or overall results too much. I've had plenty of kills even without LOS, so why risk valuable units in pursuit of perfection?

Incidentally there's a scenario (#195--Bringers of Punishment) in SP Main Battle Tank that gives the Israelis four high-value FO's in well-placed vantage points around a Syrian town. That was one of the few times I've fine-tuned spotting assignments for a battle, not only assigning airstrikes but also altering flight paths with each spotter to minimize flak and SAM exposure for each mission. Nor was re-plotting all that difficult; once initial missions were completed it was easy enough to see which spotters had LOS to remaining targets. The attention to detail paid off with max damage inflicted for relatively modest losses. You can read about it here if you're interested: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50111

Hope this has been helpful. Cheers and happy gaming!

[Anton]

Originally Posted by jivemi

If the spotter is killed you'll get a message: "Spotter has no LOS" and the rounds won't fall so accurately. (It's difficult to see things clearly from Valhalla.) The last spotter who assigns or shifts the fire mission or airstrike is the one who determines LOS to the target and therefore accuracy IIRC.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by jivemi

Yes, technically speaking it can be inconvenient to keep track of multiple spotters.

Sometimes I accidentally assign the wrong spotter. To err is human, but to prevent the human from erring is computer.

Originally Posted by jivemi

Practically speaking though most battles it hardly comes up; usually it's either the HQ or dedicated FO that does most or all of the spotting.

According to my, rather limited, experience, the attractive spotter positions are often either well-defended or at least raked by the enemy's machine gun fire, so I am forced to use several close-range spotters instead of a single one at a favourable postition with a scenic view...

Originally Posted by jivemi

If you're keen on using combat "0" units to adjust fire then it's more complex, but even so you can shift between Bombardment and Battle Screen to check which leaders have LOS to a particular target and which artillery gun, battery or aircraft has a nearby plot.

That's what I've been trying to do lately, although few of them have a good artillery command value. The game's unstructured bombardment interface causes most pain in exactly this situation, i.e. with micromanagement involving several spotters.

Originally Posted by jivemi

Most games I don't bother with frontline leaders in that role—putting them in view of the enemy can be deleterious to their health—and my spotter (HQ or FO) is tucked away safely in the rear. Just about all bombardment missions will have lower accuracy, but that doesn't seem to affect gameplay or overall results too much.

The SPWAW manual states that "casualties from unobserved indirect fire are reduced to 50%"

Originally Posted by jivemi

I've had plenty of kills even without LOS, so why risk valuable units in pursuit of perfection?

Because this adds another dimention to the tactics and makes the game both more interesting and more realistic!

Originally Posted by jivemi

Incidentally there's a scenario (#195--Bringers of Punishment) in SP Main Battle Tank that gives the Israelis four high-value FO's in well-placed vantage points around a Syrian town. That was one of the few times I've fine-tuned spotting assignments for a battle, not only assigning airstrikes but also altering flight paths with each spotter to minimize flak and SAM exposure for each mission. Nor was re-plotting all that difficult; once initial missions were completed it was easy enough to see which spotters had LOS to remaining targets. The attention to detail paid off with max damage inflicted for relatively modest losses. You can read about it here if you're interested: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50111

Interesting indeed.

[Mobhack]

The SPWAW manual states that "casualties from unobserved indirect fire are reduced to 50%"

SPWAW has precisely nil relevance to the Camo Workshop's games. This game is not SPWAW, and so does things differently from SPWAW.

Therefore how they decided to code indirect fire is of no interest to anyone on these forums. If you are interested why they did that, then the WAW fora are the place to go but not here.

SPWAW <> SPWW2

[DRG]

......and if you read OUR manual instead of one that has NO relevance to our game you will "discover " that in winSPWW2 and winSPMBT unobserved fire scatters more widely which has the effect of reducing casualties in the target hex and the better the FO and the better the view of the target the less scatter you get which is a hell of a lot more advanced than a blanket "casualties from unobserved indirect fire are reduced to 50%"

[jivemi]

...which reminds me of yet another reason why SPWW2 and MBT are better than Spwaw: Artillery bombardment in the former causes far more casualties than in the latter. For example, in my go at Scenario 191--Glosters at the Imjin--British artillery and mortars accounted for at least 13 kills, while Chicom indirect fire caused 10. In Spwaw arty bombards rarely caused kills, and one poster at their forum said heavies were so non-lethal he used them mostly for smoke. Imagine that!

[Anton]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

SPWAW has precisely nil relevance to the Camo Workshop's games. This game is not SPWAW, and so does things differently from SPWAW.

Sorry. According to the publicly available information, the games are related in that they have a common ancestor, SP-II. I shall never refer to SPWAW in this forum.

Originally Posted by DRG

in winSPWW2 and winSPMBT unobserved fire scatters more widely which has the effect of reducing casualties in the target hex and the better the FO and the better the view of the target the less scatter you get which is a hell of a lot more advanced than a blanket "casualties from unobserved indirect fire are reduced to 50%"

Agree. Arbitratry multipliers so frequently used in desktop games and computer games based on them cannot make a good model. Do you generate a normal distribution?

Originally Posted by jivemi

...which reminds me of yet another reason why SPWW2 and MBT are better than Spwaw: Artillery bombardment in the former causes far more casualties than in the latter. For example, in my go at Scenario 191--Glosters at the Imjin--British artillery and mortars accounted for at least 13 kills, while Chicom indirect fire caused 10. In Spwaw arty bombards rarely caused kills, and one poster at their forum said heavies were so non-lethal he used them mostly for smoke. Imagine that!

The kills are the number of units fully destroyed?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Anton

Sorry. According to the publicly available information, the games are related in that they have a common ancestor, SP-II. I shall never refer to SPWAW in this forum.

SPWW2 and SPMBT's common ancestor is SP2. WaW's is SP3 . But for your last sentence..