TheForwardObserver

It's Father's Day in the US today, so happy Father's Day to any of you that are dads and shavua tov. @kinophile @cbennett88 @antaress73 Lovin all the fire support testing. Would much rather read this stuff than read facebook posts from my friends re-iterating why they support/hate clinton/trump. I didn't look too hard at which Russian vehicles got knocked out by the HE/VT during my tests but I'd imagine it was the Russian vehicles on the older end of the spectrum based upon Antaress' data. I was surprised by Bennett's find with the Strykers. So we have a slight advantage going to the Yank APCs for HE/VT vehicle survivability. The end result being at the moment to avoid HE/VT against armor. That the results are unique shows to me there is probably a method to their madness.

@cbennett88 My pleasure. For what it's worth I did the same test again but added an assortment of Russian vehicles and a Knight vehicle snuck in there as well. The Knight and about 3 of 10 Russian armored vehicles, excluding the tanks, ended up getting knocked out. The Brads were un-phased.

Respectfully disagree. Carry on.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that teams could have a button toggleable for two types of spacing they'd maintain while moving or arrived at their destination. Close and Far. Far would spread a fire team over multiple action squares, close would return their spacing to what we have now. Likewise teams could benefit from a second button which toggles between two formations like file and line or file and wedge. You wouldn't put a full squad in a building that's likely to be targeted by arty because that would be doing the enemy's work for him. Likewise a team leader operating in an enviroment with a high probability of enemy contact might choose to sacrifice control in favor of survivability by spacing his troops 25 meters apart rather than 5 meters. The formation your unit moves in is important in that it maximizes either control, or firepower. For example a line maximizes fire power to the front but sacrifices firepower to the flanks. A file provides you immediate firepower to the flanks, but minimal to the front. A wedge is a compromise. I'm not saying I need it, but perfectly reasonable and would better mirror reality.

Yeah. Surprised I never noticed it with all the US vs US games I've played. We all have blindspots.

@cbennett88 @kinophile Alright so I did some tests. Marshalled a company of Bradleys, called for 155mm airburst on them with several batteries of 155. Started out massing the batteries' fire as a linear mission. After EOM, initiated a precision mission with all the guns massing HE/VT on one bradley. Results, none of the Bradleys sustained any damage. Haven't conducted the test with Warsaw pact vehicles or Abrams, someone that knows should mention whether the results end up being the same. Now I never call in HE/VT against vehicles because I save that for personnel, so the lack of any effects whatsoever has never stood out to me. I also don't know how damage is modeled in game so I don't know what goes into allowing HE/VT to cause the types of light damage people have requested. I think I could be persuaded to join the buff the VT affects against armored vehicles camp if damage could be minimized to such an extent that vehicle occupants would be safe, and only select systems are damaged. There should in my opinion be enough of a difference between the damaged dealt to armored vehicles by HE/Quick and HE/VT that people will think twice before asking a battery to shoot VT at armored targets. Sme of my resistance to the idea is rooted in an experience I had as a young buck where a friendly errant airburst round exploded over my track with no sustained damage, where I would have suspected there would have been. I also do have some videos of me calling arty in Iraq about ten years ago, and some of those rounds are airburst, if people are interested in examining the effects but folks'll have to ask me to see those over messages. I won't post them here publicly because we haven't all properly introduced ourselves.

Auto-correct @kinophile. This one has the sticky fingers of auto-correct written all over it. Now the subject verb agreement issues, alternating back and forth between passive and active voice, those were my mistakes. And yes, you can borrow the expression "sticky fingers written all over it."

@cbennett88 You know I agree with your assessment about the cumulative affects of damage and reduced vehicle performance etc, nothing you have said is incorrect. I think what they've done with CM is emphasized the benefits of one shell fuze combo over another, as a means of encouraging the player to choose the fuzes you might encounter under certain circumstances. For example, In real life you or the FDC would choose VT for infantry dug/in, in the open, and light vehicles. Overhead cover I will choose HE/delay or HE/quick, same with armored vehicles. That isn't to say that any one of these other shell fuze combos will not achieve any effects but you want to maximize the potential for good effects. Can ya'll imagine though if they beefed up arty? There'd be rioting in the streets, cries to reign it in. I have no doubt that some people here would hunt me down and assign me the blame. "Oh I don't know where FOs been lately, haven't seen him ever since he got dragged away by that pitchfork and torch wielding lynch mob."

@kinophile Not sure what's supposed to be in the wonky quote box but I did write up a a brief opinion about arty on the previous page of this thread. I didn't mention HE/VT though. I wouldn't suggest CM buff HE/VT against vehicles because I think it might encourage making improper fuze decisions which is just so contrary to my nature. I'm all about being creative but even I have limits. Now obviously any type of massed fire is going to register residual and collective damage on a target, but infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, properly armored vehicles are designed with airburst in mind. I'm not taking about humvees with stapled on armor of course. Also the lion's share of an artillery round's force is absorbed by the shell in order to create fragmentation, meaning concussive effects are sacrificed for fragmentation. Nothing I've said applies to thermobaric or other fancy munitions. Believe it was @cbennett88 that asked about whether you can mix HE/Quick and HE/VT in one mission in real life and you can. During the method of engagement portion of your call for fire you can specify fuze HE/Quick and HE/VT. The way that might sound; Gandalf this is Gimli, fire for effect, over Grid LB 2345 2345 (direction omitted), over Chinese bicycle battery, in the open, HE/VT and HE/Quick in effect, over

As an approximation of the effects of a single 155mm HE/quick (what people call point det) round, the game does a good job-- the exception being maybe a slightly weak performance against the Abrams and the lack of unique types of graphical trinkets like turrets flying off or vehicles being cut in half. Now this is somewhat understandable as we train Artillery on boneyards full of old vehicles so you witness plenty of the effects of Artillery on old vehicles, but there aren't loads of people running around with physical experience monitoring the effects of fired 155s on current platforms like the Abrams. There are some, I'm not one of them, and those that have had better keep their mouths shut. As far as what a single Observer can do if empowered in the sense that he has many assets at his disposal (rocket and missile artillery plus howitzers, CCA, CAS), has done his homework, is given priority and is operating under non-restrictive fire support coordination measures (similar in concept to ROE); I can burn every hilltop from here to kingdom come. Shake and Bake (a cocktail of HE plus WP that you save for other Observers). Or why not a combination of HE/Quick and HE/VT because why provide some jerk that believes in stuff I don't believe with a place to hide? Or that town? Perhaps we won't go to Camelot, tis a silly place. Level it. That dry field over there? Illumination ground bursts-- hope that fire doesn't cause any problems. The only limit on how many missions an FO can run simultaneously is the ability of the individual FO and the availability of assets. I've run many missions simultaneously in training, but in combat have only ever managed to run two at once. I had mixed results with that. Obviously these aren't exactly the rules we play by when guests in a foreign land, trying to bring stability to a place we've only just destabilized but high intensity conflict between gentlemen is when the gloves come off. The unofficial-official FOs creed is; The destroyer that stands upon the hill, can't be stopped, kills at will, raining bloodshed death and pain, in the sun and in the rain. Now If that sounds crazy and awful it's because it is. That's why it's not stamped on any recruitment posters, but listen we really are a polite and friendly people, well travelled and notoriously quirky. Usually possessing the subtle humor and pleasant disposition of the Saggitarius. Do not get along well with attention seeking Leo or controlling Scorpio.

I'm a reasonable man Kino, always willing to negotiate terms.

I've had a few H2H games dropped after using pause, so I usually try to let the game roll on and hope it makes it all the way through. I do use pause against the computer though because I like to track and record my fire missions, spottings and corrections. In actual combat I've always scrawled my fire missions and corrections all over my arms in permanent marker till I had a good moment to write things down properly, have always thought reality could benefit from a pause button.

Kino we should sort out some matches in the future here. Let the rest of these heathens and barbarians keep their training wheels on while we scare their women and woo their sheep.

Yeah I feel you @kinophile. I don't play anything but real time and I think if I hadn't started with Normandy I'd find it a bit unsatisfying to go back to the WW2 titles after Black Sea, and I haven't picked up Red Thunder because my pro-western bias is apparently deeper than I'd ever suspected. There are things about them though- particularly the Brit Paras in Holland and Normandy and the high ground fights in Italy that are keeping me occupied till we see movement on Black Sea. I do think you'd be impressed with some of the maps and terrain in Fortress Italy and the CMBN market garden module compared to Black Sea-- lots of big cities and mountainous landscapes.

@Sublime raises a good question @kinophile-- why don't you like WW2 games?

I don't recall where, but I read once that soldiers who've experienced war as youngsters will often return to the comforting items and behaviors of their youth as they attempt to sort out or come to terms with what they've done. Wargaming, model airplane building, paintball etc can appear a bit differently through that lens I reckon, as what might appear as a form of adult regression could in fact be a sophisticated and calculated form of therapy. I doubt there have been any proper scientifc studies done on this particular hypotheses but I've painted enough airfix toy soldiers as an adult to consider that there might be a grain of truth there.

That scenario editor is a journey Jams. I've spent more time going back and forth from the editor doing trial and error tests than actually playing the game because my brain doesn't properly digest the wording used in the manual.

@Jammersix You gathering thoughts for some future scenario making or looking for a good scenario to play?

"i have a cunning plan..." "we'll use planes with engines, to pull planes without engines, and crash land the ones without engines into the enemy packed with soldiers who'll spring out like candy from a piñata.." "brilliant baldrick!"

@MOS:96B2P I noticed you were an intel type back at the end of January when you posted some test data to a thread I had going. Sure it was the handle that gave you away, but you could strip from it the details and your trained analyses with labeled graphics, coherent flow and complete answers would still betray you.

I'd take my chances behind enemy lines as well. Well-- that or toss my boat driver overboard and set a course for anywhere but Omaha. John you sound like what the fancy folks might call a disruptive thinker. Unless your eye for details and analysis was a recent development I suspect you know you could have made a fine intelligence man-- which means you probably would have hated the army. Good intelligence people are story tellers and obsessive detaileers, obstinate and two faced. Professing the Laws of Newton by day, and quietly researching the philosopher's stone under the cover of night.

You beat me to it @John Kettler. In honor of D-Day I was going to pose the question; If you had to choose, would you have dropped in with the Airborne or hit the beach, and why?

@TJT All together now.

We did just activate a ballistic missile defense base in Romania, but that's completely un-related to any ballistic missile posturing or capabilities of the Government of Russia. Wouldn't want anybody in the middle east thinking they'd get away with altering paradigms in Europe with ballistic missile threats.

'Neccessity is the mother of invention'-- I believe it was Al Gore who first said that, after personally developing the internet.