Controlling Artillery

[pnzrldr]

First, thanks much to Battlefront for responding to my post under 'The Titanium Bunker.' Interesting and appreciated.

Would like to comment on the darn good artillery model and make two recommendations about control. First, the spotting, timing and adjustment methodology for field artillery seems very good and highly realistic. Depending upon the proficiency of the relevant command nodes and FDC and the degree of pre-planning, delivering accurate fires really can take as long, or even far longer, than depicted in the sim. The lethality and suppression effects seem extremely close to real world. I've seen some soldiers in the game KIA from a shell when at least one other soldier was closer to the blast and unharmed, and this is perfectly believable given the rather random blast/frag patterns most rounds produce. Effects on terrain and buildings also seem quite close to real world. Shells quick-detonating in tree tops, and throwing lethal air burst frag is just awesome.

However, I've been frustrated in two regards in attempting to refine control of indirect fires. First is in the method for mission volume. Why do you use the harrass/light/medium/heavy thing? Why not let the observer specify desired rounds? At least if it is a US forward observer? If I know my Company or BN mortars only have 30 rounds, I am going to monitor actual expenditures very carefully as the CO - and expect our FOs to call for specific round-count volleys, ie. "Battery 5" meaning 5 rounds per tube? Most FDCs assign round counts to missions based on target description (if no specific count requested by the observer), and "medium" concentrations against troops in the open would get a lot less rounds than "medium" against tanks in a woodline. I think the light/med/heavy thing works ok for rate of fire (although you generally cannot influence ROF much as the observer/FO) but think a specific round count should at least be an option. Maybe an option only available to trained FOs? Love the option to specify 'general' or 'personnel' target effects, btw.

Second is my frustration with trying to repeat already fired missions. In the real world, nearly every "end of mission" from an artillery observer to the FDC is followed by the words, "record as target." This means that if I want that same spot shelled again the data is immediately available. This in effect creates a 'TRP' where each mission falls. We should be able to send a message to our arty to "repeat" a mission on the same spot, either during or immediately following execution, that doesn't incur another several minute long wait for more rounds. If the guns are already laid on my target, the crews simply recommence firing that data. We should further, be able to get fairly rapid adjustment missions from previously fired missions. Why not do what we do in the real world and assign TRPs (we actually call them "targets") numbers? Number the initial setup TRPs, and then as each mission is fired, place a new numbered TRP (or TGT) on the map where the rounds fell that can be adjusted from and utilized for more rapid, accurate fires? Further, when the 'emergency' command is used if the rounds fall off target you would then have at least some way of adjusting them back onto the target more rapidly than calling a whole new mission. This would admittedly increase the power of artillery and probably only models US/UK/GE doctrine - less capable/well-trained Armies might not receive the same benefits. But given the limited ammo available (realistically) for light mortars, precise round control and recording TGT data would go a long way to enhancing their effectiveness and rounding out their utility in the sim. If I can control how many rounds my former jeep driver, now ammo bearer is pulling out of the back of the deuce-and-a-half to resupply the forward .30-cal, I should be able to more precisely control my artillery assets.

[Apocal]

However, I've been frustrated in two regards in attempting to refine control of indirect fires. First is in the method for mission volume. Why do you use the harrass/light/medium/heavy thing? Why not let the observer specify desired rounds? At least if it is a US forward observer? If I know my Company or BN mortars only have 30 rounds, I am going to monitor actual expenditures very carefully as the CO - and expect our FOs to call for specific round-count volleys, ie. "Battery 5" meaning 5 rounds per tube? Most FDCs assign round counts to missions based on target description (if no specific count requested by the observer), and "medium" concentrations against troops in the open would get a lot less rounds than "medium" against tanks in a woodline. I think the light/med/heavy thing works ok for rate of fire (although you generally cannot influence ROF much as the observer/FO) but think a specific round count should at least be an option. Maybe an option only available to trained FOs? Love the option to specify 'general' or 'personnel' target effects, btw.

Simplification. They wanted it to be accessible, easily and quickly. Or at least that was the answer Steve gave (I think it was to me?) back in the days of CMSF. It would be confusing to people if medium gave 30 rounds per tube against a point tank target but when you made an area target to encompass a pair of tanks they only fired 10 rounds per tube.

See what I'm getting at?

Second is my frustration with trying to repeat already fired missions. In the real world, nearly every "end of mission" from an artillery observer to the FDC is followed by the words, "record as target." This means that if I want that same spot shelled again the data is immediately available. This in effect creates a 'TRP' where each mission falls. We should be able to send a message to our arty to "repeat" a mission on the same spot, either during or immediately following execution, that doesn't incur another several minute long wait for more rounds. If the guns are already laid on my target, the crews simply recommence firing that data. We should further, be able to get fairly rapid adjustment missions from previously fired missions. Why not do what we do in the real world and assign TRPs (we actually call them "targets") numbers? Number the initial setup TRPs, and then as each mission is fired, place a new numbered TRP (or TGT) on the map where the rounds fell that can be adjusted from and utilized for more rapid, accurate fires? Further, when the 'emergency' command is used if the rounds fall off target you would then have at least some way of adjusting them back onto the target more rapidly than calling a whole new mission. This would admittedly increase the power of artillery and probably only models US/UK/GE doctrine - less capable/well-trained Armies might not receive the same benefits.

This is a legit request and I believe it's been made before.

[womble]

Second is my frustration with trying to repeat already fired missions. In the real world, nearly every "end of mission" from an artillery observer to the FDC is followed by the words, "record as target."...

It's a bit complicated in CM by the lack of a persistent relationship between spotter and battery. If your suggestion of simply adding a TRP for each completed mission were followed, for example, TRPs would have to have the capacity to be for a specific battery; at the moment, they'd apply to all batteries available, as well as assisting in accuracy with direct fire in their area of influence. You'll agree, I'm sure, that the target parameters recorded by a 60mm mortar on the map wouldn't be very useful to some 150mm Divisional assets half a dozen miles back, and you can be sure people would use fast, cheap missions to "pre-register" for slow, expensive, high calibre ones. TRPs are a bit like demo charges, in that they're somewhat over-capable abstractions of a RL capability or entity, simplified to make game play more accessible.

[YankeeDog]

TRPs are a bit like demo charges, in that they're somewhat over-capable abstractions of a RL capability or entity, simplified to make game play more accessible.

This is a good summary of the current state of TRPs.

In terms of TRPs and registrations, it's also worth remembering that balancing the fact that you can't record targets in CM is the fact that artillery assets are always exactly known and always on call whenever the player wants them to be in CMBN. This certainly was not always true IRL -- for example, as a CM player, you never make a call for regimental or divisional level support and get the response that all the batteries are busy with other missions and you'll have to wait or do without.

IRL, FOs and lower-level commanders often had to "plead their case" to get artillery support; important higher-level assets would not be dedicated to just any target.

Of course, the flip side of this is that especially under the American and British centralized indirect support control systems, if a really important, juicy target did show up in front of a company commander, he could potentially bring down a heck of a lot of artillery support pretty darn quickly as long as he could get the FDC on the radio and properly articulate the need.

But overall, CM is intended to be general ground combat simulator, and abstractions and simplification need to be made in places. Perhaps some refinements could be made to improve the current system, but artillery direction and and control could really be a whole game unto itself so there are limits to how precisely CM is ever going to be able to model all the details.

[womble]

But overall, CM is intended to be general ground combat simulator, and abstractions and simplification need to be made in places. Perhaps some refinements could be made to improve the current system, but artillery direction and and control could really be a whole game unto itself so there are limits to how precisely CM is ever going to be able to model all the details.

I think we're going to see this applied in skip loads with air defense in the upcoming modern high-intensity cutting edge combat in the Ukraine product. When an asset tens or hundreds of km away can affect whether another asset can have an effect on the battlefield, we're going to need some simplification and abstraction

[costard]

That's a good call Womble - see if it pans out. All this, and more! They set the bar higher, yeah? (Caveat, they delivered with CMBN and CMFI).