Direct Fire Artillery

[Graywinter]

When an artillery weapon is fired 'normally' (page 21) does that mean you make a hit roll, and use cover as if the weapon were a rifle or something similar?

Just trying to wrap my head around an 81mm mortar being fired directly.

I shudder to think of a Nebelwerfer getting to hit without the artillery scatter... these things are really really powerful for the cost.

 

[hithero]

Thats what the rules imply but are obviously wrong, artillery maybe should have the artillery trait as optional but not mortars. Again we have had to house rule as we found blind, speculative fire way to accurate and shooters stand more chance of hitting a target it can't see than to miss it.
For unseen targets we use 2xD10 out and D10 back.
For targets directed by a spotter and direct fire D10 out and D10 back.

 

[Alexb83]

It's all very situational.

A 25pdr could (and would) be used for direct fire.

A 3.7 inch AA gun generally would not be (I think Tobruk was the rare exception where they /were/). Not that it could not be, but because they weren't built for it, and generally commanders wouldn't use them for it (for a start, command structure would not normally allow for that to happen) though it did later become the 32pdr AT gun.

88mm Flak could and obviously was used for direct fire. I suppose at a stretch you could even use it for indirect fire - though I think that the muzzle velocity was a bit high for it to get a useful trajectory.

A light (2 inch or equivalent) mortar could be used (and was) as an improvised man portable weapon for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Cain

 

[Graywinter]

Direct fire would not use the 'out and back' scatter rule. You would roll a dice and hit the target on a 4+. That's my problem, I can't imagine how accurate that would be - truly devastating to get a 50% chance of hitting with a mortar or Werfer.

 

[DM]

A light (2 inch or equivalent) mortar could be used (and was) as an improvised man portable weapon for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Cain

True, and 81mm mortar rounds could be (and were) thrown as improvised hand grenades on occasion, but so rarely that I generally wouldn't allow them to be used that way in a game other than under a scenario specific rule. Same goes for salvo rocket launchers (with the possible exception of the "Stuka Zu Fuss" which, IIRC, was deployed as a direct fire weapon against buildings and fortifications in a similar role I guess to the Churchill AVRE's petard mortar).

 

[Agis]

A 25pdr could (and would) be used for direct fire.
A 3.7 inch AA gun generally would not be (I think Tobruk was the rare exception where they /were/). Not that it could not be, but because they weren't built for it, and generally commanders wouldn't use them for it (for a start, command structure would not normally allow for that to happen) though it did later become the 32pdr AT gun.
88mm Flak could and obviously was used for direct fire. I suppose at a stretch you could even use it for indirect fire - though I think that the muzzle velocity was a bit high for it to get a useful trajectory.
A light (2 inch or equivalent) mortar could be used (and was) as an improvised man portable weapon for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Cain

The above mentioned diversity of artillery guns and situations was the reason to keep it all simple, get ONE rule and play!

Let us say it all together: "It is a game, not a simulation!"
:wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Alexb83]

Well, when it comes to the Desert war, you're really going to be hurting the Brits if you don't let them use their solid shot for 25pdrs before the 6pdr becomes available.

 

[Graywinter]

I have no problem with grouping artillery together - I am talking about the rule that lets you fire a mortar or rocket launcher directly with a 4+ (normally) instead of having to place a fire zone and scatter it.

Am I the only person who has a problem with this? The LZ on a rocket launcher is 4" - it rolls 2xD6+1 - If I have one in direct sight of the enemy, I can fire it up to 60" at them, hit on a 4+, then roll against every target in an 8" diameter area! That could be a couple of squads of infantry if you get hit while clumped up in the deployment zone or trying to take cover.

The sheer number of dice rolled is the killer - if you caught 10 guys in the area (not hard to do considering everyone has to be within 6" of the squad leader) you'd roll 20 dice, adding +1 to the result of each one.

The last few games I have played, I have let my tanks and artillery do all the work, my squads just can't get in range fast enough, and they just can't survive the rocket fire.

The Germans never get close to my lines because my artillery blows them apart before they get to mid field.

The "God's Eye View" of artillery allows you to direct artillery fire upon squads that no one in the army can see - you cannot hide from it - making it impossible to maneuver a squad close enough to launch an attack.

Artillery really needs to be called in by an observer, or at least someone else in the army that can see the enemy. The Artillery trait needs to be changed so that it MUST be fired as artillery, never 'normally'

I am a big believer in offering solutions rather than just complaining. I'd recommend an ammendment that states - any weapon with the artillery trait gets a two man team with the same profile as regular soldiers. They are armed in a basic fashion, maybe with options to upgrade to SMGs or carbine/assault rifles. Give them the Stealthy trait so they cannot be fired at unless someone is within 20" or they fire their weapons. Give them Ambush so they can be deployed forward. Take a ready action, then call in artillery.

Simple.

I don't know if I would have a unit for a FO, and they would direct all artillery. That would be a bit off for platoon level games - but I might even go as far to rule that all like weapons (ie, all mortars) had to fire as a battery - essentially all upon the same target.

Some stuff I am not sure of, but I definitly believe that artillery is too easy to direct upon squads. I know they miss sometimes, but when you consider that they have such large lethal areas, it is more likely they will hit something, rather than nothing.

 

[Graywinter]

Upon thinking about it a little more- I propose a solution more in line with the "game, not a simulation" theme of WaW (Which, I agree to in principle)

Artillery Observation
Artillery weapons do not have to draw a LoS to place a Fire Zone, however, they require the Fire Zone to be established by any other friendly unit.

This does not require additional units be invented, nor does it allow for an opponent to blast observers, rendering artillery useless. It will allow squads to use artillery to increase their own offensive power (Kind of the point, IMHO) Most important of all, it prevents artillery from dominating the battle by attacking squads that no one could even be aware of (The squad that has been lurking behind a stand of trees for the entire game)

I love this game, I just keep finding things that bother me in the realism department. Games based on historical subject matter need to be historical to feel right... otherwise, we're playing 40k, just by a different name and with different models.

 

[Alexb83]

Alot of the weapons are low velocity and wouldn't work particularly well in direct fire - you couldn't really hold a flat trajectory with many of the howitzers - some of them might even have issues being deflected low enough to fire a flat trajectory.

Rockets etc. would be inherently inaccurate - but they would be devestating if they managed to hit. Just like an AVRE mortar would probably blow a Tiger apart /if/ it hit.

 

[Graywinter]

And yet, the rules state you can fire them directly, or, normally as they put it

 

[DM]

My "keep it simple yet related to reality" house rule would be to allow field guns to fire direct but not mortars or rockets.

 

[Graywinter]

Which makes sense. Wonder why there isn't a US 105mm howitzer in the game lists? Its heavy artillery, like a werfer.

 

[hithero]

Which makes sense. Wonder why there isn't a US 105mm howitzer in the game lists? Its heavy artillery, like a werfer.

Because Bolt Action don't make a 105mm, the nebelwerfer should have been treated as off-table artillery but as Bolt Action make one, it had to be included.

 

[Graywinter]

Just one house rule in a list as long as my arm:

Artillery Observation
Artillery weapons do not have to draw a LoS to place a Fire Zone; however, they require the Fire Zone to be established by any other friendly unit. Mortars and Rocket Launchers may not fire directly, they must fire as artillery.

 

[Agis]

Just one house rule in a list as long as my arm:

Artillery Observation
Artillery weapons do not have to draw a LoS to place a Fire Zone; however, they require the Fire Zone to be established by any other friendly unit. Mortars and Rocket Launchers may not fire directly, they must fire as artillery.

Sounds like a good house rule to me if you want observers to be visible on the table. :wink:
Following the high abstraction game design goal we assumed that Obserers are there (deeply hidden, concealed etc). The rule is also representing Artillery effects of SST: who knows how the Bugs are guiding their Artillery strikes...

Another reason not to include something like your houserule was the fact that in most WaW games the above rule will be fulfilled by default since the engagement area (aka game table) is quite small and in the average 1500 pts game somebody will see the target...
:wink:

 

[hithero]

But if off table artillery have to use an observer, why not on table? The rule is noy consistant. We play it that the command group have to direct any indirect artillery fire.

 

[Alexb83]

Just one house rule in a list as long as my arm:

Artillery Observation
Artillery weapons do not have to draw a LoS to place a Fire Zone; however, they require the Fire Zone to be established by any other friendly unit. Mortars and Rocket Launchers may not fire directly, they must fire as artillery.

Sounds like a sound one for me if you want observers to be visible on the table. :wink:
Following the high abstraction game design goal we assumed that Obserers are there (deeply hidden, concealed etc). The rule is also representing Artillery effects of SST: who knows how the Bugs are guiding their Artillery strikes...

Another reason not to include something like your houserule was the fact that in most WaW games the above rule will be fulfilled by default since the engagement area (aka game table) is quite small and in the average 1500 pts game somebody will see the target...
:wink:

Also doesn't make much sense when you consider in SST you had fleet liasons etc. on the table to direct in air support and missile strikes.

If you're representing 1 man = 1 figure, then an observer team should be a discrete, visible asset.

And for some armies in certain time periods you would be required to have a dedicated Observer for each battery.

 

[DM]

And for some armies in certain time periods you would be required to have a dedicated Observer for each battery.

Actually that should be the norm rather than the exception for most periods and settings. Artillery "on tap" at the sort of levels covered by WaW was exceedingly rare. Its more common now but by no means universal.

 

[Alexb83]

There are also notable restrictions on artillery for certain armies in certain time periods.

Before and during Kasserine, US Army doctrine or artillery was very strict: every artillery battery had a dedicated observer on a dedicated radio frequency, and could not respond to calls for fire from other observers.

After the debacle at Kasserine, there was a very quick and overarching reshuffle of their command structure and doctrine.

I think you could find this sort of example in most every army at some point or another - I think I'm right in saying that British AT gun distribution and crewing shifted from general infantry to dedicated artillery crews as the additional training necessary for the average infantryman to qualify on an AT gun wasn't available as they moved away from units of career professionals and towards an overbearing number of raw recruits.

It doesn't necessarily mean any real change to a points system, but when putting together scenarios it might influence any little house rules or 'distribution charts' you might use.