Wouldn't you only want your Arty to be independent, stand-alone units? And wouldn't you want your mixed units to have everything buy Arty in them?
Perceptive and correct.
Arguably, MG and anti-tank are very defensive as well.
As background for any game, sometimes it's difficult to determine specific echelons. Echelons can have capabilities to conduct diverse tactical tasks. Land forces (at the tactical level) usually range from fire team/crew, through the squad, section, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, and division. The division can also be an operational echelon -- based on the scope of a campaign.
The parts sometime missed by games are the Commanders’ concerns regarding different echelons. Sometimes called, “situational awareness two levels up and two levels down.”
For example, as a Brigade commander, I direct battalion/task force commanders and track companies/teams. Those are the two levels down. I am getting my mission from the Division Commander at one level up. Finally, I most certainly care about the overall situation and intent of the Corps Commander (or whatever HQ level might exist two levels up in the specific task org).
The last part, usually abstracted, are supporting relationships. This is very important to fires, like field artillery support. For example, is the artillery in direct support or is general support available. That’s a complicated topic and likely tldr given almost all wargames. It should be abstracted by the game design.
< Message edited by Malevolence -- 5/26/2020 6:23:48 PM >
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.