Jump to content

Smoke as a Force Field


Recommended Posts

There are several forum threads where we discussed smoke and how you were not able to shoot threw an established smoke screen.  As a result some players compared smoke to a force field.  However there was a work around.  When you first observed smoke rounds falling you could order your troops / tanks to area fire through where the smoke was forming (usually correctly guessing the OpFor was going to move units in this area).  As long as you got and maintained the area fire before the smoke screen became solid you could shoot through it.  Once you stopped shooting (you let your Target Briefly expire) you could no longer re-establish your ability to shoot through the smoke and had to wait for it to dissipate.  This was a good work around and is what was used.  

However after 4.0 it seems you can no longer fire through smoke at all.  It really is like a force field now.  I have even had a case where some of my own vehicles were kicking up a lot of dust and the cloud of dust drifted in front of a shooting vehicle causing the vehicle to stop shooting.  The vehicle was on area target and should have fired until told to stop, ran out of ammo or had something really bad happen to it.  Another frustrating thing about this is that the status block (lower left screen, green text) will incorrectly advise that the vehicle is aiming, firing, aiming, firing etc when it is not.  I tested this in CMBS and one of the WWII titles (IIRC it was CMFB) about a month ago. 

The smoke / force field wasn't a huge deal as long as we had a work around for it.  However 4.0 seems to have removed the work around.  In theory if the conditions are right you could follow a smoke screen all the way into the OpFor main line of resistance.  I hope maybe this behavior can be tweaked with the other 4.0 stuff that BFC is tweaking.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I also noticed this change in 4.0 and said to myself; "Well, this sucks", and I can no longer attempt Area-Fire before the Smoke envelopes...Realistically, the option to Area-Fire through Smoke, or as it's forming should be available, even if accuracy is largely reduced (as it should be).

As MOS has stated, you can now just walk your way up an objective using your own Smoke Screen w/o being harassed...I too miss the Work-Around :-(

Joe

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

The real question is whether in RL a tank CO would continue to fire into a smokescreen without seeing any target.  Don't know the answer.  Just asking.

Into an OpFor smoke screen yes. Not only tanks but rifles and about everything else since the general purpose of an OpFor smoke screen is to obscure OpFor maneuver.     The real question is should smoke be a magic force field post 4.0 or can we at least have the work around back like we had pre 4.0.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Into an OpFor smoke screen yes. Not only tanks but rifles and about everything else since the general purpose of an OpFor smoke screen is to obscure OpFor maneuver.     The real question is should smoke be a magic force field post 4.0 or can we at least have the work around back like we had pre 4.0.

Not sure wading into this is the best idea, but what the hell.

I very much disagree. At all levels of warfare, firearms handling and safety, and common sense, the basic rule of "only point/fire at a target you are sure of" permeates all. You are NEVER supposed to dump wanton fire into unsure targets. At the very least, its a waste of ammo, and more than that it poses a severe security and safety risk, regardless of whether you are a rifleman being overrun by [insert horde stereotype here] or a civilian hunter off in the woods somewhere. ("Duck Cheney!")

Yes, there are plenty of different types of targets that are viable even if you cannot see a specific person in a firefight, for example an occupied house/hedgerow/trenchline/etc. Herein lies the nuance of the issue. Some people think that an enemy smoke screen with the clear intent of concealing enemy forces that are maneuvering in the open constitutes a valid target to fire at/through. I would argue against this personally for various reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, and others. But at the most basic, I would rather be shooting at something I can see, than firing at something I only think might be there, at the very least risking an empty weapon when the enemy does emerge. A bolt action rifle with a bayonet beats a machine gun if the machine gun is out of ammo/reloading because it was dumping fire at targets it couldn't see. 

Further, it has been proven through history time and again that simply putting fire down is not enough. The fire must be effective, whether thats direct or in direct fire. 

Again, there is much more that can be said/argued about this. My main point is that in the real world, shooting randomly at unobserved targets is always a big no no (enough to be disciplined for a negligent discharge, even in a firefight) and that the ability to shoot or not shoot into/through smoke in CM makes very little difference on the overall outcome of the tactical situation. Besides, if you're going to dump fires into smoke to hinder enemy maneuver, you're better off calling on the red legs anyways.

P.S: This all wasn't aimed at you MOS, just my general response to the topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Not sure wading into this is the best idea, but what the hell.

I very much disagree. At all levels of warfare, firearms handling and safety, and common sense, the basic rule of "only point/fire at a target you are sure of" permeates all. You are NEVER supposed to dump wanton fire into unsure targets. At the very least, its a waste of ammo, and more than that it poses a severe security and safety risk, regardless of whether you are a rifleman being overrun by [insert horde stereotype here] or a civilian hunter off in the woods somewhere. ("Duck Cheney!")

Yes, there are plenty of different types of targets that are viable even if you cannot see a specific person in a firefight, for example an occupied house/hedgerow/trenchline/etc. Herein lies the nuance of the issue. Some people think that an enemy smoke screen with the clear intent of concealing enemy forces that are maneuvering in the open constitutes a valid target to fire at/through. I would argue against this personally for various reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, and others. But at the most basic, I would rather be shooting at something I can see, than firing at something I only think might be there, at the very least risking an empty weapon when the enemy does emerge. A bolt action rifle with a bayonet beats a machine gun if the machine gun is out of ammo/reloading because it was dumping fire at targets it couldn't see. 

Further, it has been proven through history time and again that simply putting fire down is not enough. The fire must be effective, whether thats direct or in direct fire. 

Again, there is much more that can be said/argued about this. My main point is that in the real world, shooting randomly at unobserved targets is always a big no no (enough to be disciplined for a negligent discharge, even in a firefight) and that the ability to shoot or not shoot into/through smoke in CM makes very little difference on the overall outcome of the tactical situation. Besides, if you're going to dump fires into smoke to hinder enemy maneuver, you're better off calling on the red legs anyways.

P.S: This all wasn't aimed at you MOS, just my general response to the topic. 

Ahh...We at least now know...You don't use Area-Fire/Recon by Fire in CM ;)

"DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME"...

Ok, on a less serious note...I tend to agree with your overall assessment, but still prefer at least the return option of Area-Firing before a Smoke Screen fully develops.

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area fire through smoke/fog/dust has been an issue since CMBO and it's not going to be solved any time soon.  CptMiller hit on the crux of it...

In real life you don't unload through smoke/fog/dust except for very specific conditions are met. 

The conditions which a unit does fire into smoke/fog/dust (herein referred to as "smoke") is if there's a very good sense of what is there, where it likely is, and what it is probably doing.  "Hey look, there's smoke... I'm going to fire valuable ammo into it just in case there's something there" is not how it works.  The greater the range the less likely a real life unit will fire blindly.

Real world example is an enemy unit 25m away down a narrow street.  You've been exchanging fire for 10 minutes and you are pretty sure the only way in or out of the building is in your sights.  Smoke gets popped, so you presume that sometime in the next 30 seconds the unit will probably make a move.  You pop off some shots kinda sorta towards the door area hoping to pick someone off as they exit.  If you hear something that makes you think there's a target in LOS, maybe you dump a bunch of ammo.

That's quite realistic, wouldn't you all agree?

What is not realistic is a situation where Unit A has been exchanging fire with an enemy unit and it pops smoke and starts to move in a direction that Unit B could theoretically engage.  Unit B has NOT been engaged in the fight thus far because it lacks LOS to the enemy unit's current location.  Unit B would see the smoke and not know what the Hell it's all about, but would be ready for the second a target revealed itself.  It would not likely proactively start pounding rounds into the smoke because it doesn't have a clue what is there.  Could be Unit A trying to disengage for all Unit B knows.  BUT THE PLAYER knows what's what and so the player could theoretically order Unit B to fire blindly into the area based on intel from Unit A.  That is "gamey".

The point here is that in real life smoke works because units tend to not shoot blindly for a variety of pretty darned good reasons.  Because a game gives players way, way, waaaaaaaay too much information and precise control of unit actions, smoke is inherently less effective than it is in real life.  Creating TacAI behavior which allows for realistic exceptions is not practical for us to do.  Therefore, the more we allow the player to shoot through smoke, the less realistic the game becomes.

All that said... we are having an internal debate about allowing units already engaged in Area Fire to continue doing so if obscured by smoke.  I'm not sure why this was changed for Engine 4, but it seems the game would be better off if it went back to the way it was.  It's at least something for us to consider!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

All that said... we are having an internal debate about allowing units already engaged in Area Fire to continue doing so if obscured by smoke.  I'm not sure why this was changed for Engine 4, but it seems the game would be better off if it went back to the way it was.  It's at least something for us to consider!

Steve

Yes, not asking for any new behavior.  Just hoping the smoke issue can work the way it always has since CMSF1 (at least as far as I remember).  Thank you for considering the issue and taking the time to post about it. :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Area fire through smoke/fog/dust has been an issue since CMBO and it's not going to be solved any time soon.  CptMiller hit on the crux of it...

In real life you don't unload through smoke/fog/dust except for very specific conditions are met. 

The conditions which a unit does fire into smoke/fog/dust (herein referred to as "smoke") is if there's a very good sense of what is there, where it likely is, and what it is probably doing.  "Hey look, there's smoke... I'm going to fire valuable ammo into it just in case there's something there" is not how it works.  The greater the range the less likely a real life unit will fire blindly.

Real world example is an enemy unit 25m away down a narrow street.  You've been exchanging fire for 10 minutes and you are pretty sure the only way in or out of the building is in your sights.  Smoke gets popped, so you presume that sometime in the next 30 seconds the unit will probably make a move.  You pop off some shots kinda sorta towards the door area hoping to pick someone off as they exit.  If you hear something that makes you think there's a target in LOS, maybe you dump a bunch of ammo.

That's quite realistic, wouldn't you all agree?

What is not realistic is a situation where Unit A has been exchanging fire with an enemy unit and it pops smoke and starts to move in a direction that Unit B could theoretically engage.  Unit B has NOT been engaged in the fight thus far because it lacks LOS to the enemy unit's current location.  Unit B would see the smoke and not know what the Hell it's all about, but would be ready for the second a target revealed itself.  It would not likely proactively start pounding rounds into the smoke because it doesn't have a clue what is there.  Could be Unit A trying to disengage for all Unit B knows.  BUT THE PLAYER knows what's what and so the player could theoretically order Unit B to fire blindly into the area based on intel from Unit A.  That is "gamey".

The point here is that in real life smoke works because units tend to not shoot blindly for a variety of pretty darned good reasons.  Because a game gives players way, way, waaaaaaaay too much information and precise control of unit actions, smoke is inherently less effective than it is in real life.  Creating TacAI behavior which allows for realistic exceptions is not practical for us to do.  Therefore, the more we allow the player to shoot through smoke, the less realistic the game becomes.

All that said... we are having an internal debate about allowing units already engaged in Area Fire to continue doing so if obscured by smoke.  I'm not sure why this was changed for Engine 4, but it seems the game would be better off if it went back to the way it was.  It's at least something for us to consider!

Steve

Oh, and I for one totally agree....In RL, you may have a couple soldiers firing pop shots for a few seconds into a forming Smoke/Dust screen, but wont have whole units be given firing orders into it for your stated reasons above (thou, a person giving a Smoke Screen also has way to much info as the enemy that's going to be screened by it).

So, I'm actually Ok with keeping it now, or going back to original...

Thou, there is another option, if Game Engine allows it (and not to much work)...If there is a way to have units already firing (when a Smoke/Dust forms) to continue for another Action-Cycle or so before stopping...Kind of like we see now with friendly troops firing pop shots at enemy Icons for a few seconds, but player doesn't see any enemy troops. 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Thou, there is another option, if Game Engine allows it (and not to much work)...If there is a way to have units already firing (when a Smoke/Dust forms) to continue for another Action-Cycle or so before stopping...Kind of like we see now with friendly troops firing pop shots at enemy Icons for a few seconds, but player doesn't see any enemy troops. 

If that were possible, it would be a very satisfactory compromise imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

All that said... we are having an internal debate about allowing units already engaged in Area Fire to continue doing so if obscured by smoke.  I'm not sure why this was changed for Engine 4, but it seems the game would be better off if it went back to the way it was.  It's at least something for us to consider!

Steve

 

5 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Yes, not asking for any new behavior.  Just hoping the smoke issue can work the way it always has since CMSF1 (at least as far as I remember).  Thank you for considering the issue and taking the time to post about it. :)  

 

Count me too among those who would like to see the pre-v4.00 behavior regarding this.  Thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting topic indeed. In a combat situation, with known enemy spotted in the area, a smoke screen to the front would initiate immediate suppression fire from an infantry rifle company (or platoon). There is no "waiting" until you see the enemy. The smoke deployment would mean the enemy is attempting a flanking maneuver or an advance (or hopefully a withdrawal). The infantry organization's life would depend on an aggressive reaction. So, I firmly believe we should be able to area fire into a smoke screen. A smoke screen is not a "Secret hiding spot" or "Safe Space".... it's extremely noticeable and would cause life saving reaction fire.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2017 at 4:37 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Area fire through smoke/fog/dust has been an issue since CMBO and it's not going to be solved any time soon.  CptMiller hit on the crux of it...

In real life you don't unload through smoke/fog/dust except for very specific conditions are met. 

The conditions which a unit does fire into smoke/fog/dust (herein referred to as "smoke") is if there's a very good sense of what is there, where it likely is, and what it is probably doing.  "Hey look, there's smoke... I'm going to fire valuable ammo into it just in case there's something there" is not how it works.  The greater the range the less likely a real life unit will fire blindly.

Real world example is an enemy unit 25m away down a narrow street.  You've been exchanging fire for 10 minutes and you are pretty sure the only way in or out of the building is in your sights.  Smoke gets popped, so you presume that sometime in the next 30 seconds the unit will probably make a move.  You pop off some shots kinda sorta towards the door area hoping to pick someone off as they exit.  If you hear something that makes you think there's a target in LOS, maybe you dump a bunch of ammo.

That's quite realistic, wouldn't you all agree?

What is not realistic is a situation where Unit A has been exchanging fire with an enemy unit and it pops smoke and starts to move in a direction that Unit B could theoretically engage.  Unit B has NOT been engaged in the fight thus far because it lacks LOS to the enemy unit's current location.  Unit B would see the smoke and not know what the Hell it's all about, but would be ready for the second a target revealed itself.  It would not likely proactively start pounding rounds into the smoke because it doesn't have a clue what is there.  Could be Unit A trying to disengage for all Unit B knows.  BUT THE PLAYER knows what's what and so the player could theoretically order Unit B to fire blindly into the area based on intel from Unit A.  That is "gamey".

The point here is that in real life smoke works because units tend to not shoot blindly for a variety of pretty darned good reasons.  Because a game gives players way, way, waaaaaaaay too much information and precise control of unit actions, smoke is inherently less effective than it is in real life.  Creating TacAI behavior which allows for realistic exceptions is not practical for us to do.  Therefore, the more we allow the player to shoot through smoke, the less realistic the game becomes.

All that said... we are having an internal debate about allowing units already engaged in Area Fire to continue doing so if obscured by smoke.  I'm not sure why this was changed for Engine 4, but it seems the game would be better off if it went back to the way it was.  It's at least something for us to consider!

Steve

ok so what if im playing against someone, and i can clearly see their AOA even if i was put into the soldiers shoes, but they spam smoke so i cannot fire into their position. this doesnt make any sense to me, give the player the option to fire through smoke if he wants. I dont like this change at all

 

or how about when a unit throws smoke infront of the building theyre in, why can i not decide to destroy their position because the smoke "forcefield" is in the way?

Edited by dasitmane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dasitmane said:

ok so what if im playing against someone, and i can clearly see their AOA even if i was put into the soldiers shoes, but they spam smoke so i cannot fire into their position. this doesnt make any sense to me, give the player the option to fire through smoke if he wants. I dont like this change at all

 

or how about when a unit throws smoke infront of the building theyre in, why can i not decide to destroy their position because the smoke "forcefield" is in the way?

Ok, but you're a team leader and barely aware of what's happening 10 meters around you... is that smoke coming from your side or the other? There's a lot to be said for not firing blindly.

There's also a lot to be said for giving the H2H players the free rein to take advantage of the 200ft god view for gaming purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have god-like spatial awareness in the game.  In RL the situation would be much more confused.  It's realistic that troops (their CO anyway), would be reluctant to possibly waste precious ammo firing blindly into smoke.  One could argue that an enemy could pop up smoke, wait for your men to fire and pinpoint their positions, and then attack you while your guys were low on ammo.

Edited by Erwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2017 at 9:46 AM, dasitmane said:

or how about when a unit throws smoke infront of the building theyre in, why can i not decide to destroy their position because the smoke "forcefield" is in the way?

If your opponent is dumb enough to blind himself by popping smoke directly in front of his defensive position, I would argue that he is making your job easier, not harder. 

One of the biggest issues with modern "realistic" games is the over reliance on smoke. The second a bullet flies overhead, everyone starts chucking smoke grenades everywhere. Not only is this unrealistic, its completely stupid. 

Maybe the problem here isn't how the game handles smoke, but with players misusing an asset then wondering why things aren't going well for them. 

Edited by IICptMillerII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey, first time poster, owned CMBN since May

I do not care that much about whether I can get my troops to shoot through an smoke screen, however I do wish that I could at least create the target order through the smoke, my troops then aiming but not firing until they then can then see the subject of my target command (just as they seem to do on an targeted enemy that becomes temp hidden from view). At current an single second in time (where smoke is present for the orders turn) ends up preventing suppression or any other such targeting orders from occurring for up to an minute of time, even though the thing that preventing you in that single second of time no longer exists. I was going to write some examples but I am sure many here would know or could think up such examples.

just like saying "1 section, were going to get to that trench under smoke cover, then as soon as the smoke clears start suppressing that building" or "1 section, an smoke screen is going to cover 2 sections movement, but get ready to start suppressing that building should the smoke clear before they get to their destination" or something

Edited by Oliver_88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be useful, but complex.  One can achieve a similar effect by ordering AREA FIRE on a spot just in front of the smoke.  CM2 does calculate the shells continuing onwards thru the smoke, so your shells (esp for MG's and small arms fire) would have some effect on whatever is on the other side of the smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...