How To Make Spotters Playable Again!

[boersma8]

Since WoTC themselves stated that they want more units to be playable again, we introduced a houserule to make spotters :eek: worthwhile picking in your army again. The things we wanted to achieve were as follows:

1.) Spotters should be better at their core business than " any unit" that can spot for the US mortar per the official rules. Clearly at the moment they are not.

2.) Spotters should have a better chance of survival

3.) They should be worth their points ( usually around 11)

As for one, we introduced a houserule that comes down to the spotters being able to spot as far as 8 hexes away ( instead of the usual 4) ( I mean what else do they have those binoculars for? ;) ). This already makes a big difference!

Considering our second point concerning how to make them more resilient: Give them +1 on cover rolls and / or give them superior camouflage ( unit cannot be attacked from medium or longe range) or camouflaged ( unit cannot be attacked until it moves or attacks, spotting not being an attack)

3.) Implementing points 1 and 2, instantly makes them worth their cost!

Then of course, there's STILL the problem of the US mortar: Yesterday we played the battle of the Bulge miniatures scenario, though I have to admit we didn't play with the sample builds. My opponent only slightly adjusted said build, but I changed my American build quite a lot. I put in two US heavy mortars and I regretted it for the whole scenario! If this is supposed to be what WoTC call fun, well, I'm sorry to say it, but because of the 81 mm mortar I did not enjoy the game at all! There's no strategy involved whatsoever! It's even possible to spot with a vehicle ( possibly being in harm's way!), but after spotting simply moving away! The actual spotter units are all " chatting on the radio" for crying out loud! Since I had two of them, it basically guaranteed two destroyed enemy infantry per turn! I have to give it to my opponent: he's truly a very skillful player! Many times he will outmanoeuver me with things such as strike and fade and also simply by the placement of his units. There's virtually nothing and I repeat, NOTHING you can do against the 81 mm mortar. And...Mind you I was the one receiving the " benefits" from them and it thoroughly spoiled My enjoyment of that particular game! In a 100 point build it might be risky to choose two of them in your army ( if your opponent has a vehicle heavy army, you will basically have squandered 24 points....), but in a 200 point battle you CANNOT go wrong! Even in a 100 point battle there's a fairly good chance the ( power-gaming) army WILL be infantry heavy, since we all know that the 5/5 infantry are what dominate the game!

So how can you solve this, keeping the points regarding actual spotters in mind? What we came up with is the following:

When spotting for the US mortar, those units gain " spotting on the radio" and consequently cannot move. This at least makes it more likely that at least that unit might be taken down along with the almost guaranteed mortar kill.

Secondly, because we still felt the US mortar was overpowered we wanted to restrict the units that can do the spotting, without taking away the advantage that IMPROVED indirect fire has over " normal" indirect fire. We decided to only allow soldier units to be able to spot for it, but I suppose you can also restrict that to vehicles and or planes or spotters + commanders. Just experiment, I'd say and stick with what you like best! Now all of a sudden it's an entirely different ballgame and the playing field is even again! Suppose the Germans have their 81 mm mortar and a spotter ( who can now spot up to eight hexes away and gets +1 on cover rolls) he's now a match for those American units that need to be within for hexes! Luckily it's usually still possible to outmanoeuver a single spotters and to buy two is too heavy an investement! Tactics are suddenly back into the whole mortar business and spotter units have become playable again!

P.S.: Should one want to use the American spotter jeep, of course this would function as a regular spotter! ( so although no soldier type, still able to spot up to eight hexes away!) It's arbitrary if the jeep should also get +1 on cover rolls, since I suppose a jeep is easier to spot han two men lying down on their bellies.....

What do you guys think?

[Colonel_Panic]

I like those ideas very much!
There are two ways of solving the Improved indirect fire
(1) Only allow commanders to spot for it
(2) All non spotters get -1 / die for inaccurate 2 due to the fact they are not spotters.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, the Improved Indirect Fire as written is beyond stupid. We couldnt get through a single night's play before we changed it when Set4 came out.

Our dimestore change is simply to disallow the spotting unit to move during the assault phase in which it spots (basically like adding 'chatting on the radio' as you mentioned). That still leaves the mortar with quite a bit of added capability, but its not ridiculously abusable.

I also like the idea of making the Spotters better. I think Superior Camouflage is probably a good idea, but if so then leave the spotting at range 4 or less. IMO, if they can spot at 8 hexes AND cant be attacked except at range 1, then mortars will gain a little too much prominence in the game.

I prefer the game to be a little more about the maneuver and counter-maneuver. Adding too much ability to call for fire diminishes the importance of that maneuver IMO. I'd definately be in favor of boosting non-Ranger spotters with either ability above, but not both at once (at least without some serious testing). Better to go with smaller steps and see the effects.

[boersma8]

Well, maybe I was't really being clear enough...What we actually played ( I put " and/or" ) is that they can spot as far as eight hexes away ( actual spotters, that is!) AND they get +1 on cover rolls ( only failing on either a 1 or 2 and should you put one in a pillbox, only failing the cover roll on a 1 :eek: .....) ( you could use a pinpointer or a veteran crew to get the odds back up to a 1 and 2 gain....:) ). The superior camouflage and camouflaged abilities were sth else one might consider....( The concealed forward observer already has the camouflaged abilty!) ( I wonder for whom actually :D ... The British don't even have a mortar yet!)

The American units needed to be within 4 hexes ( per standard rules) and, as I said, we restricted them to soldier units only. A spotting unit gained " chatting on the radio"

I agree it still needs some additional playtesting, but it's already a lot better than the standard rules!

I agree, chatting on the radio, is the least everyone should do!

[polish_horsy]

ever talk to a man who was a real forward observer in WWII? I did. I asked him if he ever called in fire while sitting in a jeep. He looked at me like I was an idiot. He said jeeps could get you from point A to point B. You didn't sit in them and call in fire.

[Colonel_Coo]

This thread appears to be about two issues:
Chatting on the Radio being useless.
Improved Indirect Fire

Our play group house rules Improved Indirect Fire: All US units with "spotter" work are eligible AND all American Officers. Period. We don't restrict them from moving while working for the 81mm Mortar. So Rangers and the Commanders benefit, but airplanes and vehicles do not.

Chatting on the Radio: Only piece we ever play with this is the Soviet Red Army Forward Observer. These are the biggest waste of time and effort in the game.

[Marquis]

Ok we do two things.

1. Make spotting 8 hexes.

2. Make spotters hard to spot by giving them +1 to cover.

(Thanks to HHR for the ideas.)

Now spottters are worth their points and they can stay away from mid range infantry fire, which before, would kill them much to quickly.

The American mortar is still very dangerous but we havn't changed it at all. American commanders complained that the infantry wasn't agressive enough and relied on the artillery whenever they found resistance. Even Patton was quoted saying "you know who won the war, the artillery did." So I believe improved direct fire represent this. Is it fair that the Americans get such a good unit? Maybe not but war isn't fair and every game shouldn't be about fighting even battles against same units, it's about trying to win with you given choices.

I think that's all that is needed.

[boersma8]

This thread appears to be about two issues:
Chatting on the Radio being useless.
Improved Indirect Fire

Our play group house rules Improved Indirect Fire: All US units with "spotter" work are eligible AND all American Officers. Period. We don't restrict them from moving while working for the 81mm Mortar. So Rangers and the Commanders benefit, but airplanes and vehicles do not.

Chatting on the Radio: Only piece we ever play with this is the Soviet Red Army Forward Observer. These are the biggest waste of time and effort in the game.

No, chatting on the radio isn't useless, it's a must! For the American mortyars usually units can spot with impunity, that's part of the problem!

[oddfellow]

Ok we do two things.

1. Make spotting 8 hexes.

2. Make spotters hard to spot by giving them +1 to cover.

(Thanks to HHR for the ideas.)

Now spottters are worth their points and they can stay away from mid range infantry fire, which before, would kill them much to quickly.


This seems like a good solution. I'd be very pleased to have a feasible spotter/mortar combination in the game simply for the "It should be in the game" aspect. This would effect planes as well, so it would have to be evaluated along with any errata to plane effectiveness, but I'm also in favor in tying planes in more directly to spotters in this game.

[Thunderjp]

This still would not prevent me from abusing the rediculous combo of using my jeep as an infantry spotter for my 2 mortars after I drop off my flame thrower.

[oddfellow]

This still would not prevent me from abusing the rediculous combo of using my jeep as an infantry spotter for my 2 mortars after I drop off my flame thrower.

Thats more a problem with "improved indirect fire" SA, which needs to get errata'd, than with spotters as a whole.

[Latro]

The reason Boersma and me decided to give these house-rules ago was because the indirect-fire system as a whole is pretty silly:

- it's either way too powerful like the USA mortar that pretty much can "see and kill" everywhere ...

- or it's close to totally useless ... use anexpensive spotter that gets killed the first turn it spots or drag the mortar into the front-line so it can see targets for itself (so much for indirect-fire)

Since indirect-fire in itself is a nice addition to the game, things had to change. To prevent the too-easy-to-use Improved Indirect Fire system, we scrapped that special rule and changed it to a toned downversion: regular soldiers can spot, but it keeps them busy during the assault-phase (calling in fire-support, making corrections and such) ... that way you actually have to plan the whol thing, it's not just an automatic thing anymore.

The second part of the problem were the spotters. Spotters can be a very hand thing to have in an army, provided they don't die the second they start looking around. It made sense to give them a better spotting range than regular infantry and they would probably make keep in cover as well (instead of standing on a hilltop waving a large flag with a bullseye painted on it). So they get the superiour camouflage SA and the +1 on their cover-saves.

That's the general idea. Is it the perfect solution? Probably not (yet), that's why we're testing it ... but I'm pretty sure it will work a lot better than how things are now.

- I especially liked the idea (in the other thread I believe) about the spotter needing town or hills terrain to spot on long range ... anything that forces you to take better advantage of the terrain is a good thing!

- Perhaps use spotters as well to call in airstrikes on targets in cover.

- Spotters ables to spot snipers?


:cool:

[shadowhooch]

Good thread to start. This needs fixing. I kind of agree with Uncle Joes sentiment. Here's my opinion:

Spotter Rule: Any unit can spot up to 4 hexes but cannot fire or move during the assault phase. This includes units being transported (i.e. Transport unit can't move). I'd just keep it simple and say aircraft can spot too but can't fire - but aircraft rules still need to be worked on so hold on this for now.

Spotter Units: All get Superior Camouflage (no +1 on cover as that would be too much). They can spot 4 hexes too. But can spot up to 8 hexes from hill and town hexes (good rule Latro).

That's my take.

[Vikingwarrior]

I say use the existing HHR rules on this. They have been play tested and work. Why try and re-reinvent the wheel?

[boersma8]

This still would not prevent me from abusing the rediculous combo of using my jeep as an infantry spotter for my 2 mortars after I drop off my flame thrower.

OUR rule would! ( only soldier type units can spot for the US mortar). If you want to spot with the flamer, be my guest, you'd be chatting on the radio and would therefore, in all likelihood, lose your flamer...A flamer for an SS panzergrenadier, I can live with...;)

[boersma8]

Good thread to start. This needs fixing. I kind of agree with Uncle Joes sentiment. Here's my opinion:

Spotter Rule: Any unit can spot up to 4 hexes but cannot fire or move during the assault phase. This includes units being transported (i.e. Transport unit can't move). I'd just keep it simple and say aircraft can spot too but can't fire - but aircraft rules still need to be worked on so hold on this for now.

Spotter Units: All get Superior Camouflage (no +1 on cover as that would be too much). They can spot 4 hexes too. But can spot up to 8 hexes from hill and town hexes (good rule Latro).

That's my take.

I'd go for the +1 on cover saves ONLY ( so without superior camouflage...) Anyone can shoot at him, but cahnce are you'll ned to fire a lot of shots before you hit anything...)

Then again, the one thing I really don't get is why the British concealed forward observer does get " camouflaged ( can't be attacked at medium or long range until it either moves or fires, well, move it may have to do sooner or later, but since spotting is not an attack, tyhat's not really much of a drawback..) and all the other spotters DO NOT have this benefit! :confused:

8 hexes when on a hill or city hex is fine! As I said, as far as making them more survivable is concerned, there's sth to say for all three options ( + 1 on cover rolls, superior camouflage, camouflaged)

The big advantage of camouflaged might be that there's already an existing spotter with this ability, so it wouldn't take that much for WoTC to say: Apply this to all spotters ! ( along with range 8 on town and hill hexes!). I mean, demolitions isn't on the engineers cards either!)

You would have to keep planes from being allowed to attack snipers as well as spotters!

[Qmark]

Why not just accept that Mons & the gang severly overestimated the importance of aircraft, thus dedicated spotters (and most aircraft) suck and should never be played?

Then, simply don't play them. Whining and crybabying that your grossly overcosted spotter got all blowed up isn't going to make the opponent not blow up your grossly overcosted spotters.

The solution is very simple: give Germany an IIDF mortar in Set 6, and give everyone else cheaper and hardier spotters some time during Sets 6 & 7.

[fifleche]

Why not just accept that Mons & the gang severly overestimated the importance of aircraft, thus dedicated spotters (and most aircraft) suck and should never be played?

Then, simply don't play them. Whining and crybabying that your grossly overcosted spotter got all blowed up isn't going to make the opponent not blow up your grossly overcosted spotters.

The solution is very simple: give Germany an IIDF mortar in Set 6, and give everyone else cheaper and hardier spotters some time during Sets 6 & 7.
Because this does NOT accomplish what WOTC stated the "advanced" rules should do: let more units be playable.

Yes, the design staff severely overestimated the airplanes and spotters, and as such they are overcosted. But it is NOT "whining and crybabing" to point out these units when the rules are SUPPOSED to help out more units become playable, and these AREN'T. This is simply helping out WOTC design staff accomplish their stated purpose, and yes, they DID ask for our imput. Issuing "better" units in later sets won't, again, accomplish their stated purpose, it will only offer up a more cost-effective unit, while leaving the "tacklebox fillers" in their previous role.

[Qmark]

Because this does NOT accomplish what WOTC stated the "advanced" rules should do: let more units be playable.Which is where Platoons work very well. Give me a handfull of mortars and a spotter at a deep discount, and we've got a good start. Give me a free spotter with each plane, and we've got a better start.

I see no real possible errata to "Spotter" SA that makes these guys worth nine or eleven points.

[shadowhooch]

This is simply helping out WOTC design staff accomplish their stated purpose, and yes, they DID ask for our input.

Qmark,
Yep, they asked for feedback. I think they realize that the game isn't what it COULD be and are relying on us to come up with some solutions. They appear very busy with many projects and don't have the time to playtest and examine rules impact. It's not "whining". It's contributing to the discussion.

Ultimately, WotC will decide which route works best for them. But it doesn't hurt to throw the ideas out there for consideration.

[Qmark]

Sorry guys, the jaded powergamer reflex fired up again.

[boersma8]

Because this does NOT accomplish what WOTC stated the "advanced" rules should do: let more units be playable.

Yes, the design staff severely overestimated the airplanes and spotters, and as such they are overcosted. But it is NOT "whining and crybabing" to point out these units when the rules are SUPPOSED to help out more units become playable, and these AREN'T. This is simply helping out WOTC design staff accomplish their stated purpose, and yes, they DID ask for our imput. Issuing "better" units in later sets won't, again, accomplish their stated purpose, it will only offer up a more cost-effective unit, while leaving the "tacklebox fillers" in their previous role.

I couldn't have said it any better and as an aside, it will also help make the game more historical, LOL! :D

[boersma8]

Which is where Platoons work very well. Give me a handfull of mortars and a spotter at a deep discount, and we've got a good start. Give me a free spotter with each plane, and we've got a better start.

I see no real possible errata to "Spotter" SA that makes these guys worth nine or eleven points.

Giving them all " camouflaged" or " superior camouflage" and able to spot up to 8 hexes away will come a long way in accomplishing just that! ;)

[Vikingwarrior]

Gee I wish HHR would have come up with that solution. Oh wait they did. :rolleyes:

[Qmark]

Why stop at eight?

Consider indirect fire as is:
Indirect Fire - If a firendly Spotter is within four hexes of an enemy soldier and has line of sight to it, this unit's attack ignores line of sight.

This makes non-spotting spotters such as Rangers and whatever work automatically, meaning the Spotter SA is useless apart from a weaksauce bonus to aircraft.

Now, consider this addition to the specific Spotter SA:
Spotter - ...If this unit has line of sight to an enemy unit, friendly units with Indrect Fire ignore line of sight when attacking this unit.

Suddenly IIDF isn't that 'improved', eh?

[Latro]

Gee I wish HHR would have come up with that solution. Oh wait they did. :rolleyes:

From what I saw of their alternative rules (just downloaded it from the site), it still doesn't fix the fact that spotters have to behave like "sitting ducks" to make the mortars do their job.

If you need t pay 10ish points for a unit that has only one job and that's to make another unit be able to do its job, it better well be able to do it right. Why should one man (or two) with a scope and a radio-set and trying not to be noticed stand out as much as a regular squad of soldiers behaving agressively?

A bonus on cover saves is nice ... but a few attacks concentrated on him will most likey still kill him.

So IMHO the HHR-rules simply don't get the job done.


:cool:

[boersma8]

Gee I wish HHR would have come up with that solution. Oh wait they did. :rolleyes:

I know. And I appreciate HHR very much! At the same time i keep hoping WoTC will one day also see the logic behind many of HHR's rules. Many more units are playable, costs are more correct andhey, things are even about as historical as you can get!

[101st_Airborne]

Spotters should be able to call in off-board Artillery

[Vikingwarrior]

From what I saw of their alternative rules (just downloaded it from the site), it still doesn't fix the fact that spotters have to behave like "sitting ducks" to make the mortars do their job.

If you need t pay 10ish points for a unit that has only one job and that's to make another unit be able to do its job, it better well be able to do it right. Why should one man (or two) with a scope and a radio-set and trying not to be noticed stand out as much as a regular squad of soldiers behaving agressively?

A bonus on cover saves is nice ... but a few attacks concentrated on him will most likey still kill him.

So IMHO the HHR-rules simply don't get the job done.


:cool:

If you can spot the enemy up to 8 hexes away almost all infantry only have med. range hence the spotter will last and more then serve his purpose. And he has the bonus of 1 movement and +1 cover. What more do you want? 5 defense with double shot?

[Latro]

If you can spot the enemy up to 8 hexes away almost all infantry only have med. range hence the spotter will last and more then serve his purpose. And he has the bonus of 1 movement and +1 cover. What more do you want? 5 defense with double shot?

- due to terrain blocking line of sight, most often the range of all the action is medium or even closer ... to be effective, the spotter can't hang back at long range very often

- not getting shot is better protection than getting a better save after getting shot ... and since the spotter is the only way to make most mortars works, they deserve good protection

- superior camouflage will do fine, thank you

- feel free to promote HHR ... just let me be free to see things differently


:cool:

[Vikingwarrior]

- due to terrain blocking line of sight, most often the range of all the action is medium or even closer ... to be effective, the spotter can't hang back at long range very often

- not getting shot is better protection than getting a better save after getting shot ... and since the spotter is the only way to make most mortars works, they deserve good protection

- superior camouflage will do fine, thank you

- feel free to promote HHR ... just let me be free to see things differently


:cool:
Most action does take place at short or medium range because that is the distance infantry can fire. What distance does the US mortar fire at? But you feel free to use whatever convoluted house rule you want. Make him defense 6 for all I care. But don't diss what you obviously have not tried.

[Latro]

Most action does take place at short or medium range because that is the distance infantry can fire. What distance does the US mortar fire at? But you feel free to use whatever convoluted house rule you want. Make him defense 6 for all I care. But don't diss what you obviously have not tried.

Unless spotters suddenly gained the ability to spot indirectly, it's not of much use to compare them to the USA mortar.

It's obviously not allowed to prefer my own house-rules over HHR unless I have tried those a couple of times ... too bad really, I enjoy feeling a bit crative now and then.

On a side-note: as you're so busy dissing my version, I'm sure you tried those as well to compare them to HHR?


:cool:

[Vikingwarrior]

Unless spotters suddenly gained the ability to spot indirectly, it's not of much use to compare them to the USA mortar.

It's obviously not allowed to prefer my own house-rules over HHR unless I have tried those a couple of times ... too bad really, I enjoy feeling a bit crative now and then.

On a side-note: as you're so busy dissing my version, I'm sure you tried those as well to compare them to HHR?


:cool:

I prefer not to try and recreate the wheel if I don't have to. But you go right ahead and try if that is what blows your dress up. If your way is more fun for you then by all means use it, after all that is what it is about. :)

BTW since when do spotters for the US spot indirectly? They still need a "spotter" that has LOS to the target.

[boersma8]

I prefer not to try and recreate the wheel if I don't have to. But you go right ahead and try if that is what blows your dress up. If your way is more fun for you then by all means use it, after all that is what it is about. :)

BTW since when do spotters for the US spot indirectly? They still need a "spotter" that has LOS to the target.

I think what he meant by " spotting indirectly" is that a unit can spot and THEN still move out of LOS, so spot with impunity.

I think that both the HHR rule and the houserule we use are A very similar and B both huge improvements over the official WoTC rule, so I'd say that instead of criticising each other, you'd better work together to get WoTC to adopt one of them for the expert rules! ;) Like I said: If you take a close look at them they're very similar and they both try to achieve the same goal: making them more playable and downtoning the dominance of the US mortar!

[boersma8]

ever talk to a man who was a real forward observer in WWII? I did. I asked him if he ever called in fire while sitting in a jeep. He looked at me like I was an idiot. He said jeeps could get you from point A to point B. You didn't sit in them and call in fire.

So just imagine they got out of the jeep to call in fire and are actually lying 50 metres away from it...( a hex is a hundred metres after all.....) ;)