I think the number after artillery pieces is the number of "sections" in the battery, and corresponds to impact markers; one per section. Fits the point values too.
From the rules, regarding unit stands- page 4, [3.2] "playing pieces"-
"or groups of two, four, or six artillery pieces deployed in one, two, or three "two-gun" sections".
Note that it overlooks mentioning the occasional piece with a number 4 after it; correct since there were actually some "8-tube" batteries in WW-2
Using this system, one artillery model/stand could represent anything from one to four two-gun sections, depending on the historical deployment of the pieces. I assume the stands would be marked to indicate the number of sections they represent.
Please- somebody tell me if I have this all wrong, as it's what I've been assuming since I got the rules...
As to weapons availability in any theater in this campaign, I think perhaps what is needed to know is what was available overall at any given time- and whoever is in change now (not then) then decides what gets sent where. Otherwise we just make the same mistakes all over again. But I may be looking at the campaign differently than it's intended too. Is the idea, for instance- that the same units must be sent to Afrika (or where-ever), or is that up to the player (s) in command? likewise, one assumes the players won't be burdened by the same units being "lost in transit" either; another possible explanation for a shortage of light flak. (I still think it's just an oversignt, m'self)
Regards,
JR
GHQ rules questions
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
jb, the best explanation in on page 112 at the bottom where Max conducts the fire he plotted... Overall the explanation in the rules is not great, but Max's action makes it a little clearer.
Will
Will
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
kiasutha
- E5
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:10 pm
Guys:
The artillery plotting has had me wondering too...
So-as per page 112, if Max is using terrain maker and uses designation by hexes-
1-does the hex-designation just "confirm"/ act as a secondary designation of fire, or
2-the designated hex acts instead of a measured-in-inches fire co-ordinate; and-
3-if so, how do you designate intended point of impact within the hex ; or
4-does the number of markers fired just strike the whole bloody hex instead...?
5-if "whole-hex" based, is deviation to the new hex still plotted by inches?
"1" obviously works & is "traditional" if possibly a bit inexact...(terrain etc.)
"2" is really fast, simple and precise; avoids disputes etc...
"3" could almost make "2" redundant, but might work with standard templates/similar...
"4" is dead simple, precise, makes arty. much more dangerous, and is pretty scary...
"5" would still work, or deviation could easily be worked out on a basis of # of hexes.
Sorry if these are dumb questions or any of my meaning is unclear; trying to keep a reasonable length...
Regards,
JR
The artillery plotting has had me wondering too...
So-as per page 112, if Max is using terrain maker and uses designation by hexes-
1-does the hex-designation just "confirm"/ act as a secondary designation of fire, or
2-the designated hex acts instead of a measured-in-inches fire co-ordinate; and-
3-if so, how do you designate intended point of impact within the hex ; or
4-does the number of markers fired just strike the whole bloody hex instead...?
5-if "whole-hex" based, is deviation to the new hex still plotted by inches?
"1" obviously works & is "traditional" if possibly a bit inexact...(terrain etc.)
"2" is really fast, simple and precise; avoids disputes etc...
"3" could almost make "2" redundant, but might work with standard templates/similar...
"4" is dead simple, precise, makes arty. much more dangerous, and is pretty scary...
"5" would still work, or deviation could easily be worked out on a basis of # of hexes.
Sorry if these are dumb questions or any of my meaning is unclear; trying to keep a reasonable length...
Regards,
JR
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
its like I said,I couldn't find it. I obviously didn't read pp112. This explains a lot as to how the author gets his coordinates. Thanks!1ComOpsCtr wrote:jb, the best explanation in on page 112 at the bottom where Max conducts the fire he plotted... Overall the explanation in the rules is not great, but Max's action makes it a little clearer.
Will
John
-
dnichols
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:24 pm
There are in the real world other ways besides thecoordinate system to call and adjust artillery that easily translate into GHQ rules.
1) Shift from a known point. The artillery is shifted from a point visible to the spotter and known by the firing unit. On the table top, that means when I write down my call for fire I record "3 inches west of crossroad" or 4" west and 4" north of barn. You roll cohesion to call the fire and for deviation. Simple to do in the game and realistic.
2) Registered target. A battery registers and adjusts to a known target. Ideally the battery would actually fire rounds on the target to register, thus being able to compensate for wind etc. On the table top you simply predesignate a set number of targets before the game. When you call artillery in the game you write down the target id and roll for cohesion. A successful roll and the artillery comes in and lands exactly on the pre-registered target.
In games with more terrain, you use the shift from a known point and in games in the desert you use the coordinates.
The author of the rules taught artillery for the Marine Corps and the GHQ rules are in my opinion very realistic for the time period. In conversations with the author he said that there were some aspects of real world artillery tactics that were ommitted on purpose to keep the rules simple.
I have played dozens of games using the above additions along with the already written artillery rules and been VERY pleased with the way the rules handle artillery and mortars. As a former mortar platoon leader with the US Army during the Gulf War I appreciate realistic artillery and mortars in a game.
---Daryl
1) Shift from a known point. The artillery is shifted from a point visible to the spotter and known by the firing unit. On the table top, that means when I write down my call for fire I record "3 inches west of crossroad" or 4" west and 4" north of barn. You roll cohesion to call the fire and for deviation. Simple to do in the game and realistic.
2) Registered target. A battery registers and adjusts to a known target. Ideally the battery would actually fire rounds on the target to register, thus being able to compensate for wind etc. On the table top you simply predesignate a set number of targets before the game. When you call artillery in the game you write down the target id and roll for cohesion. A successful roll and the artillery comes in and lands exactly on the pre-registered target.
In games with more terrain, you use the shift from a known point and in games in the desert you use the coordinates.
The author of the rules taught artillery for the Marine Corps and the GHQ rules are in my opinion very realistic for the time period. In conversations with the author he said that there were some aspects of real world artillery tactics that were ommitted on purpose to keep the rules simple.
I have played dozens of games using the above additions along with the already written artillery rules and been VERY pleased with the way the rules handle artillery and mortars. As a former mortar platoon leader with the US Army during the Gulf War I appreciate realistic artillery and mortars in a game.
---Daryl
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
right, right.I totally agree on replications of the "real' world. As a former tanker I can appreciate the procedure of short cutting,for playibilities sake. I would use the word omitt,but we really don't want to consider anything pertinent as being omitted,just shortened if you will...dnichols wrote:...
The author of the rules taught artillery for the Marine Corps... In conversations with the author he said that there were some aspects of real world artillery tactics that were ommitted on purpose to keep the rules simple...
---Daryl
John
-
Luca
- E5
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: SLC
Hi, i wanted to ask You how destructiv colud be an artillery fire. I mean, if I want to destroy a bridge to avoid its use by the enemy, wich tipe of artillery and for how many turns of fire will I get the result?
Another question. I can recall that the rules states that to destroy a medium improved position I have to get a D result, and the position turns in to medium rough terrain. If it is a heavy improved position you need TWO D results. How can I apply this to built up zones? I think that a russian village can be much more be trated as medium improved position instead as an urban area like Stalingrad, but the rules call both this two very different terrain as URBAN.
And a last question. If I bomb a village, I t will start to burn, then avoiding its use by the enemy and creating a huge smoke curtain, or it will just be set in ruin?
Do You have some suggestion on the argomet? Thank You! L.
Another question. I can recall that the rules states that to destroy a medium improved position I have to get a D result, and the position turns in to medium rough terrain. If it is a heavy improved position you need TWO D results. How can I apply this to built up zones? I think that a russian village can be much more be trated as medium improved position instead as an urban area like Stalingrad, but the rules call both this two very different terrain as URBAN.
And a last question. If I bomb a village, I t will start to burn, then avoiding its use by the enemy and creating a huge smoke curtain, or it will just be set in ruin?
Do You have some suggestion on the argomet? Thank You! L.
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
OK, we've fought our first WW-2 battles and find a couple of interesting anomalies...
Does anyone know why the author left out the 88mm anti-tank guns, both the dual purpose version and the single purpose AT version from the Anti-tank unit listing for all German time periods. It seems a little odd to our group, as well as the lack of any German light tanks and SP artillery in Afrika, which we've talked about before, and the unusual stipulation that MK-IV short and long 75s can't be used in the same battle...?
The "88" is the one item that interests me the most... especially when there is a point cost for using the weapon in the AT role, and a different point cost for the AA role...? Do you have to pay both costs to use it in the dual purpose role? If you pay the lesser of the two are you limited to that use only?
Does the author of the rules frequent this site so I can ask him directly, or does someone who regularly uses the rules have an answer, or any idea what his reasons are...?
Thanks, Will
Does anyone know why the author left out the 88mm anti-tank guns, both the dual purpose version and the single purpose AT version from the Anti-tank unit listing for all German time periods. It seems a little odd to our group, as well as the lack of any German light tanks and SP artillery in Afrika, which we've talked about before, and the unusual stipulation that MK-IV short and long 75s can't be used in the same battle...?
The "88" is the one item that interests me the most... especially when there is a point cost for using the weapon in the AT role, and a different point cost for the AA role...? Do you have to pay both costs to use it in the dual purpose role? If you pay the lesser of the two are you limited to that use only?
Does the author of the rules frequent this site so I can ask him directly, or does someone who regularly uses the rules have an answer, or any idea what his reasons are...?
Thanks, Will
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
Will,I can't answer those questions because I can also ask them plus more about some other things. For the upcoming campaign I'm going to use the points cost only. I prefer my own rules to the GHQ rules, and will be using them on a 5:1 scale.
Daryl Nichols frequents this forum and has answers for your questions. I believe he was an active participant in the rules creation.
As for anomalies,well you know every rule set has them,unless you design your own,then there are none, LOL!
Daryl Nichols frequents this forum and has answers for your questions. I believe he was an active participant in the rules creation.
As for anomalies,well you know every rule set has them,unless you design your own,then there are none, LOL!
John
-
dnichols
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:24 pm
The author most certainly did not leave the 88 ATG guns out!
The 88m PAK 43 ATG is listed on page 34 under German ATGs. The point cost is 105 points. AP is 11 and HE is 6.
The 88mm Flak 36 is on page 36 under AA Guns. This versions cost is 121pts. AP is 9 and HE is 6. There are also special rules on section 10.0 page 14 to cover the "superior sighting and range finding equipment".
There is a separate point cost for each model. The PAK 43 ATG has at AT of 11 vs the 9 of the Flak 36. The AT version gains an additional 2 pts of AP and could not be used in an AA role. My guess would be the ammo load out. (If somebody knows the differences of the PAK 43 and the Flak 36, please let us know)
You just pay the cost for which version you want to field.
Why the MK-IV short and long versions can not be used in the same battle, that one I will have to ask the author. I have known the author long enough and have a high enough respect for his design and historian skills that there is some reason for the statement on page 60.
The specific TOE may not be listed in the Germany Africa TOE for the Light Tanks or SP Artillery but there is nothing that says you can add them to your forces. Just pay the point cost and add them to your scenario.
---Daryl
The 88m PAK 43 ATG is listed on page 34 under German ATGs. The point cost is 105 points. AP is 11 and HE is 6.
The 88mm Flak 36 is on page 36 under AA Guns. This versions cost is 121pts. AP is 9 and HE is 6. There are also special rules on section 10.0 page 14 to cover the "superior sighting and range finding equipment".
There is a separate point cost for each model. The PAK 43 ATG has at AT of 11 vs the 9 of the Flak 36. The AT version gains an additional 2 pts of AP and could not be used in an AA role. My guess would be the ammo load out. (If somebody knows the differences of the PAK 43 and the Flak 36, please let us know)
You just pay the cost for which version you want to field.
Why the MK-IV short and long versions can not be used in the same battle, that one I will have to ask the author. I have known the author long enough and have a high enough respect for his design and historian skills that there is some reason for the statement on page 60.
The specific TOE may not be listed in the Germany Africa TOE for the Light Tanks or SP Artillery but there is nothing that says you can add them to your forces. Just pay the point cost and add them to your scenario.
---Daryl
Last edited by dnichols on Mon May 28, 2007 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
dnichols
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Sorry I missed your questions earlier.Luca wrote:Hi, i wanted to ask You how destructiv colud be an artillery fire. I mean, if I want to destroy a bridge to avoid its use by the enemy, wich tipe of artillery and for how many turns of fire will I get the result?
Another question. I can recall that the rules states that to destroy a medium improved position I have to get a D result, and the position turns in to medium rough terrain. If it is a heavy improved position you need TWO D results. How can I apply this to built up zones? I think that a russian village can be much more be trated as medium improved position instead as an urban area like Stalingrad, but the rules call both this two very different terrain as URBAN.
And a last question. If I bomb a village, I t will start to burn, then avoiding its use by the enemy and creating a huge smoke curtain, or it will just be set in ruin?
Do You have some suggestion on the argomet? Thank You! L.
I have always treated villages as "light buildings" and medium positions meaning per section 11.4.2. Meaning an "E" result turns the village into Rough Terrain 1, meaning rubble and burning buildings.
Urban areas, with cement and brick buildings are "heavy buildings" and I treat them as heavy improved positions. Meaning per section 11.4.3 it takes 2 "E" results with artillery to turn the area into Rough Terrain 2, rubble, collapsed buildings and fires.
Now for really heavily build up and dug in urban areas like Stalingrad, I would take sections and designate them as heavy improved positions as the soldiers have dug trenches, crawlways, mouse holes etc.
It would take a great deal of artillery fire to destroy a bridge. I have not read of any specific examples of that being done historically. If anybody knows of any examples, please do post them. Without a historical example it is hard to come up with a reasonable solution on the game table.
If I don't want an opponent to use a bridge I simply drop artillery on it, put a duration fire on it for a couple turns and if he wants to use the bridge then he has to drive or run thru the arty and take the effects. Go ahead drive your trucks over the bridge, I will take those +5 attacks.
Excellent questions, Luca.
---Daryl
-
Ritter
- E5
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:59 am
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
WARNING! The following is deemed to be extremely dry and may cause drowsiness and fatigue. Readers are cautioned to not attempt detailed painting or to operate heavy airbrushes while reading.
The FlaK18/37 8.8cm L/56 caliber dual purpose AA/AT gun was the original '88'. This gun was also mounted in the 'Tiger I' Pz.Kpfw.VIE
Firing Panzergranate 39-1, penetration was apx. 130mm of RHA at 500m and 90 degrees.
The Pak 43 was a 8.8cm L/71 caliber gun mounted on the 8.8cm FlaK18/37 carriage with a large gunshield - similar to the 8.8cm FlaK18/37.
This gun was mounted in the Tiger II, Nashorn, Elephant, and JagdPanther.
Firing Panzergranate 39/43, penetration was apx. 220mm of RHA at 500m and 90 degrees.
The 8.8cm PaK 43/41 was the same K.wK Pak 43 8.8cm gun mounted on the 15cm sFH 18 artillery carriage. It had a smaller shield than the Pak 43 but due to the overall size, it was commonly referred to as the 'Barndoor'.
Troy
The FlaK18/37 8.8cm L/56 caliber dual purpose AA/AT gun was the original '88'. This gun was also mounted in the 'Tiger I' Pz.Kpfw.VIE
Firing Panzergranate 39-1, penetration was apx. 130mm of RHA at 500m and 90 degrees.
The Pak 43 was a 8.8cm L/71 caliber gun mounted on the 8.8cm FlaK18/37 carriage with a large gunshield - similar to the 8.8cm FlaK18/37.
This gun was mounted in the Tiger II, Nashorn, Elephant, and JagdPanther.
Firing Panzergranate 39/43, penetration was apx. 220mm of RHA at 500m and 90 degrees.
The 8.8cm PaK 43/41 was the same K.wK Pak 43 8.8cm gun mounted on the 15cm sFH 18 artillery carriage. It had a smaller shield than the Pak 43 but due to the overall size, it was commonly referred to as the 'Barndoor'.
Troy
-
Hugewally
- E5
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:30 pm
- Location: Largo, FL USA
- Contact:
