Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

ARE TRP'S OP?

K

Kacper

Guest
For about 150 pts you can have 5 spots on a map that you can bomb without line of sight with no spotting rounds and short call times. ARE TRP's OP in h2h battles? Is there a historical context in which they can be allowed? is there a battle type they make more historical sense in, for example, a prob? ones they don't make sense in? do they make you a better player because you have to put your forces in original locations that aren't TRP hot spots? what do people think?
I'm asking because I've always said as a rule max 2 trps for h2h games but if the developers gave them the point cost that they did, maybe they did it for a reason and I should trust them and not have that rule. thoughts.
 
I think TRPs are very cheap for their value, for the reasons you outlined above.

Most people will have their own rules regarding TRPs, one that is common is 'No TRPs in meeting engagements', which makes sense right? Meeting engagements are supposedly where two opponents stumble across each other by accident, so nobody will have had time to scout out the lay of the land and do all the complicated maths that goes into it, let alone disseminate that information to all their artillery batteries etc.

My personal ladder rules state TRPs only for the defender, but no prepared artillery barrages, attacker can use prepared artillery barrages but gets no TRPs. The reason for this is in an attack/defence game the defender typically has around 60% of the attackers points, I feel that 65-70% would be a little more fair, so the defender gets TRPs to help make up for this.
 
thanks, guys that's really useful stuff and that thread from Drifter man was great. My next question is CM is a-ok war sim and I like to play it as such. try to use the right reaction to contact drill and move in formations stuff like that. are trenches and fox holes answers to trps like they are in real battles. I've read things about ww2 where the minute you stop moving you start digging. I guess I'm asking how does the real-world GI fight arty and can we do that in cm?
 
Foxholes are very good cover against artillery, especially if your troops are hiding or cowering in them, trenches I would guess so as well - although I haven't used them a great deal. Sadly CM doesn't have an order to make our pixeltruppen 'dig in', although if it did they'd probably require at least 10-15 minutes to dig out a foxhole as shown in game.
 
Artillery. Prepared (Using the Grid and for us using TRP's) Opportunity (Mortars on Platoon Level). Priority same as Opportunity but we cancel other fire missions. Fox holes dug in 50 meters outside at the start of operation or inside areas of deployment. Some editors have the habit of painting a 'Barrage' inside and area of deployment at the beginning of a scenario.
 
From a gameplay perspective it obviously depends on personal tastes and there's always that element of trying to produce a worthwhile game. From a historical perspective, it can depend a lot on the location (ie. TRPs make more sense in relative static periods like Normandy than they do in fast-moving periods like the pursuit across France) and the context.

WW2 at least is not really the kind of environment when two forces "stumble into each other", especially in the West where the force density was so high. There are plenty of instances of both sides attacking each other at the same time though... in which case any competent planning should involve preplanned artillery and TRPs. Assuming that artillery within range of the battlefield has had enough time to register potential targets could be argued to be an overly perfect situation, but then so is a situation in which no tanks are down for maintenance or out of fuel- the game is full of minor contrivances.

Personally, I don't see a problem with TRPs in any circumstances. At the end of the day: they're available to both sides, they need to be sited properly to be effective and their cost needs to be backed up by the cost of artillery assets that can also be wasted if they don't hit anything or are never used... in CMBN, for example, I've found that taking TRPs and artillery as the Allies means that I'm often actually outnumbered on the field. Whether that price is worth paying is a personal judgement.

Something else to bear in mind though is that TRPs function for all weapons, not just artillery.
 
Hapless said:
From a gameplay perspective it obviously depends on personal tastes and there's always that element of trying to produce a worthwhile game. From a historical perspective, it can depend a lot on the location (ie. TRPs make more sense in relative static periods like Normandy than they do in fast-moving periods like the pursuit across France) and the context.

WW2 at least is not really the kind of environment when two forces "stumble into each other", especially in the West where the force density was so high. There are plenty of instances of both sides attacking each other at the same time though... in which case any competent planning should involve preplanned artillery and TRPs. Assuming that artillery within range of the battlefield has had enough time to register potential targets could be argued to be an overly perfect situation, but then so is a situation in which no tanks are down for maintenance or out of I've found that taking TRPs and artillery as the Allies means that I'm often actually outnumbered on the field. Whether that price is worth paying is a personal preference
Click to expand...
I second this. Tthis goes for a lot of weapon systems. I had a game the other day where i gambled on tanks, and gambled wrong. My infantry was heavily outnumbered and I lost. It was a conscious choice I made, and it didnt pay out. Some would say it was unfair to buy more tanks then the opponent...

In the end for me it all comes down to having fun trying to make apparant disadvantages (terrain, force composition, etc.) into advantages as much as possible. Dont worry too much about winning or losing, its about having fun. Cant win them all!
 
My personal opinion is that TRPs are much too cheap for what they give you.

They are a force multiplier for artillery because each new TRP you buy can be used by any artillery asset.

Since both players can use them, they are not unbalanced competitively, but I find they make the game more boring because they nearly shut down infantry tactics, which are my favourite aspect of the game.

There's also a whole different argument about whether TRPs are working in a realistic way in combat mission, where any rifleman scout out front is in telepathic contact with the fire controller in a rear location thanks to the all-seeing player camera.
 
Kacper said:
are trenches and fox holes answers to trps like they are in real battles. [...] I guess I'm asking how does the real-world GI fight arty and can we do that in cm?
Click to expand...

No, trenches and foxholes do not work effectively to counter artillery in CM.

For a very specific reason: In CM, you need to manually order your guys to take cover (HIDE) in the foxholes, or they won't protect from artillery. Your troops can "cower", but this does not activate the foxhole arty protection.

The HIDE command can only be given once every minute. In real life, the captain doesn't need to walk down the front line shouting at his men to take cover from mortars. They would do that by themselves and react on a second to second basis.

Adding to this problem is that in CM, while troops are actively hiding in the foxhole, they can almost not fight at all. Whereas in real life, you'd be able to shoot back reasonably well while most of your body would be protected.

Also, for some reason the enemy are able to spot and shoot troops hiding in the bottom of foxholes from a distance of about 70 metres or so. In real life, you'd need to get closer and use hand grenades or flamethrowers.
 
Bulletpoint said:
where any rifleman scout out front is in telepathic contact with the fire controller in a rear location thanks to the all-seeing player camera.
Click to expand...
That's up to the player or they make the game more realistic by making decisions based on contact icons. The other one German HMG HQ among others can call strikes without a radio. What are they using? (I find mortar support for HMG teams important.) Signal Field Flashlights? It was part of their kit. My H&H battles are played on Hotseat with some more custom rules. The choice is ours or we play a PC Game or a realistic simulator.
 
ChuckDyke said:
What are they using? (I find mortar support for HMG teams important.) Signal Field Flashlights? It was part of their kit.
Click to expand...
Isn't it obvious?

1616966347245.png

But this also bothers me and I wonder why there isn't a check for a radio before being able to call in fire missions.
 
It allows for the abstracted representation of landlines I believe is what I've seen.
 
blue said:
this also bothers me and I wonder why there isn't a check for a radio before being able to call in fire missions.
Click to expand...
It is very much a generic game. The possibilities are too many to write down. AT Observer or any other HQ see two HMG's shooting tracer where they want a linear barrage in support. Whistles and flashlights pre-arranged also shooting flares. For me, I assign HMGs to infantry squads their HQ I have a suggested rule. If your HQ without a radio, sees an HQ with a radio I let him call artillery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChuckDyke said:
That's up to the player or they make the game more realistic by making decisions based on contact icons. The other one German HMG HQ among others can call strikes without a radio. What are they using? (I find mortar support for HMG teams important.) Signal Field Flashlights? It was part of their kit. My H&H battles are played on Hotseat with some more custom rules. The choice is ours or we play a PC Game or a realistic simulator.
Click to expand...
I've found 2ICs are able to call in arty strikes without having a radio, I guess the communications is abstracted because they can do it even when isolated from other radio units.
 
Another way of answering the original question is: No, I don't really think TRPs are overpowered, it's more that they are underpriced.

If they cost more, that would mean players had to think harder about how many to take, and where exactly to place them.

I think it's more fun from a gameplay perspective if you have to make compromises and tradeoffs.

100 pts each plus 100 rarity points might be a good price point.
 
Last edited:
It should be based on research. TRP's is based on the intel obtained by a patrolling program. A set-piece attack like Alamein or Epson should give you TRP's to organize a barrage. We can do this anyway in the first 15 minutes of a battle. TRPs enable the same leeway for the reinforcements.
 
so I have given this some thought and I think I have found a frame of thought that works. I don't think that TRPS are OP. because in real life they are easy enough to make and I think are regular operating procedures. what I think it is, is that artillery is too cheap... I think that I have come to the conclusion that for the size of map that combat mission simulates we as players tend to have 2X and even 3X the arty support that a normal 1 by 1 or 2 by 2-kilometer fighting zone would have... thought? what do you guys think?
 
TRPs were used historically, but I think mostly in battles we would call 'assaults'. With plenty of time to prepare on both sides. Other battles would be more dynamic with less or no time to register artillery. But in all CM games, TRPs are available and cost the same amount of points.
 
Bulletpoint said:
TRPs were used historically, but I think mostly in battles we would call 'assaults'.
Click to expand...
Much more battles were "assaults" or "attacks" then we play in the CM community. I think ME is the most played scenario, while in reality two forces "stumbling" into each other more or less unprepared would be rather rare (especially two perfectly balanced forces :LOL: ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top