Fire Support

[SteveR]

May a unit provide fire support against an enemy unit when that enemy unit would not be the primary target for normal shooting?

Consider

11 3
11


22
22 44
44

Each character is a single base. 1 is infantry, 3 is artillery and 2 and 4 are infantry units on the opposing side. 4 is in front of 3

May 3 elect to provide fire support when 1 charges 2?

[RogerGreenwood]

The artillery must obey target priority. If 4 can shoot at 3 I would say 3 is 'engaged by the enemy', which would prevent fire support. If 3 is not under fire from 4, then it must obey target priorities.
If 2 is formed and closer then I would say 3 targets 2.if 4 is formed and closer than 2, then I would suggest 3 targets 4 and does not support.

This seems an unusual position. It looks like the best option is to engage in a fire fight. When the artillery has blown 4 away, go for the charge?

[RogerGreenwood]

Just looked at the example on page 48. Although not artillery, the two units on the right are obliged to target each other and do no give support. If unit 4 is closer than 2 in your example, it would be taking the artillery fire.

[SteveR]

Thank you, this is helpful. I apologize for the diagram getting messed up - 3 was supposed to be several UD to the right of 1 and in front of 4 which is also several UD to the side of 1.

" If 3 is not under fire from 4, then it must obey target priorities."

This is my position. Some in my group seem to feel that Artillery or skirmishers would preferentially support a melee. I'm not seeing justification for that in the rules.


"If 2 is formed and closer then I would say 3 targets 2"

Closer only matters if both units were directly in front of 3. The intent was that 1 and 2 were directly in front of each other. Units will shoot at a farther unit directly in front over a closer unit which is not.

[RogerGreenwood]

Oops, sorry, I forgot 'in front' takes priority over 'nearest'. It doesn't change the decision though. The target priority is what matters. We are agreed.
I think your colleagues are victims of the common wargamer's syndrome, taking what they would like to happen over what the rules say .

[Adrian Steer]

If we're talking about fire support in shock combat. There is only one target available that of the primary unit, hence no issues are raise regarding target priorities( page 47) you do however have to be in range and have a line of sight at some point. Plus not be disordered, have an action marker nor engaged by enemy in fire or shock combat ( page 48)

[RogerGreenwood]

The argument essentially is whether target priority applies at all times.

[viperofmilan]

I have to agree with Adrian. In a shock combat situation there is only one designated target, so other priorities should not apply.

[RogerGreenwood]

Is this just an opinion, or do you have a rule reference to support this?

[SteveR]

I think the original question got confused a bit - probably due to my jumbled diagram.

Let me try again in words. One unit is charging another unit. A separate Artillery unit wishes to provide fire support even though the enemy it will be shooting is not its primary target in terms of shooting priority.

So Roger's summation is accurate.

Fire support section says that fire support "conditions (range, line of sight...) are the same as for a normal fire."

So the question is whether or not the firing priority is contained in the ellipsis. I think it is but am willing to be enlightened.

Adrian and Kevin - suppose there were two charge combats declared. Is it your position that an artillery unit in position to provide fire support to either of them could freely choose which one they preferred without constraint?