Mortarfire by mapcoordinates?

[Seedorf81]

Wasn't it possible in WW2 to direct mortarfire with just the help of mapcoordinates? I mean, why do you need a LOSspotter if you know the coordinates from, for instance, a crossroad or a house that you cannot see directly, but that you can see on your map and want to have shelled?

The mortarcrew knows how to read a map and they most surely know how to put rounds on coordinates, so wtf is this **** with the game having to have a direct line of sight on your target? (And so unevenly killing my spotters.)

If I'm hiding behind a hedgerow or in a foxhole I can still read a map and use a radio, and an experienced soldier can determine if the rounds are falling correctly by listening to the sound of the explosions.

[skogtroll]

I was reading about this once. I don't remember where. But it isn't implement in game.

[womble]

Wasn't it possible in WW2 to direct mortarfire with just the help of mapcoordinates? I mean, why do you need a LOSspotter if you know the coordinates from, for instance, a crossroad or a house that you cannot see directly, but that you can see on your map and want to have shelled?

The mortarcrew knows how to read a map and they most surely know how to put rounds on coordinates, so wtf is this **** with the game having to have a direct line of sight on your target? (And so unevenly killing my spotters.)

If I'm hiding behind a hedgerow or in a foxhole I can still read a map and use a radio, and an experienced soldier can determine if the rounds are falling correctly by listening to the sound of the explosions.

I suspect the reason it's disallowed is that we already know too much about the battlefield. If "blind" missions were allowed, people would be targetting things with arty strikes that their FOs don't even know about. If you've got a dismounted jeep driver snuck halfway into enemy positions (and no radio), you the player know precisely where to drop a mortar sheaf for best effect, whereas you may not have anyone with C&C links to the jeep driver (since he doesn't have a radio) with the juice to call in support.

In many ways the current system abstracts some 'blind' spotting. You can call in strikes 'just outside' the formal LOS of your observer, for example. It's also entirely possible for an FO to have eyes on a unit/target without that unit/any unit near the target having any inkling of the FO's existence, so the FO can conduct his business without disturbance. Short covered arcs and Slow movement into the 'last concealment' generally keep your spotters safe from intentional attack, I find.

[Brindlewolf]

There are TRP markers in the game for this.Some scenarios begin with them,

some don't.I don't play PBEM(though wouldn't mind starting) but i'm sure you can choose them at the start of game.

As far as FOs(forward observers),these guys were common casualties in all wars.Their job,to co-ordinate and have the mortars/arty/air strikes hit accurately and on target.

For Fos ingame give them a very small arc when moving them to spot,that way they won't randomly fire and give their positions away.Sometimes they are seen and killed,this happens in real life,thats why there's usually a small team but hey war is hell.One small quirk there though ingame,if the guy with the binocs goes down the FO team is useless.Again in real life this was common,sometimes the FO would be badly shot up and so would the radio.

Just my 2 cents worth

[skogtroll]

Womble my be right:). But this is a little disappointing. I think mortars should be a little less accurate and powerful, but maybe I'm wrong.

[LukeFF]

an experienced soldier can determine if the rounds are falling correctly by listening to the sound of the explosions.

That's not how artillery/mortar spotting works. It's pointless to send in mortar/artillery rounds if no one's there to see if the rounds are actually hitting their intended target.

[Crushingleeek]

It's pointless to send in mortar/artillery rounds if no one's there to see if the rounds are actually hitting their intended target.

But the point is, you could do it. Maybe it could be allowed, but you would not see any ground detonation graphics unless there was LOS to that spot

[YankeeDog]

But the point is, you could do it. Maybe it could be allowed, but you would not see any ground detonation graphics unless there was LOS to that spot

What would this solve? The primary issue, as noted, is the player's god-like perspective and ability to see everything that is happening on the battlefield that any of his units can see, anywhere.

Why would a mortar unit target a location out of its own LOS if it had no idea any enemy was there? *Somebody* with a C2 link to the mortar has to observe the enemy, and let the mortar know that it would be a good idea to drop shells in the area. How else would it happen? Does the mortar team slaughter a chicken and read the gizzard stones to decide when and where to fire?

Who cares if the player can actually see the shell detonations or not? The point his that the game needs to set some restrictions on indirect fire so the player can't unrealistically have a mortar that's completely out of C2 deliver pinpoint strikes on a target that only a 2-man scout team which is also out of C2 can see.

Of course, there are exceptions IRL where unobserved fire could be initiated more easily, such as fire missions on pre-planned, preregistered targets initiated a basic, prearranged signal (such as a flare) and timed fire missions coordinated with e.g. an assault. But CM has abstractions to deal with both of these exceptions. Namely, TRPs and Turn 1 fire missions plotted during the setup phase. As abstractions, these game features don't perfectly represent reality, but they work pretty well for the vast majority of situations.

As a secondary comment, I would also note that there are all sorts of reason why "blind" map fire, without corrections from a trained observer with LOS to the impact point, is considerably less accurate. All sorts of things can throw off the impact point of a mortar or artillery shell. The baseplate creeps as the weapon is fired. The tube is hotter because the weapon has been fired recently, and/or the tube is sitting in direct sunlight. Air temperature and/or barometric pressure changes affect trajectory. The wind could change direction. Etc. To get the kind of pinpoint accuracy you see with mortar strikes in CMx2, you need observed corrections, even more so back in WWII, before GPS, trajectory-tracking radar, digital targeting computers, etc.

But, as noted, I see these issues as entirely secondary problem of the player's omniscient view. Allowing the player to leverage his advantage in information and observation by allowing blind fire wherever and whenever the player pleases would basically throw realistic combat tactics out the window.

[BadgerDog]

The mortarcrew knows how to read a map and they most surely know how to put rounds on coordinates, so wtf is this **** with the game having to have a direct line of sight on your target? (And so unevenly killing my spotters.)

Having qualified and trained on the 81mm mortar, plus experienced calling live fire with it, I can comment on its specific use.

It's not as simple as looking at a map and picking a 6 figure grid reference off a map and kapow, away you go.

In real life, to call a fire mission without GPS and other modern navaids, you need to know where you are on the map you're staring at, which I can tell you in the middle of smoke, chaos, stress and managing a green platoon leader, is a challenge unto itself.

Once you get oriented and are sure you are where you think you're supposed to be, then you need to know that the house on the map you're looking at is the same house you're eyeballing, which in our game terms is simulated with LOS.

Once you confirm that by looking at relative terrain features around the eyeballed house and comparing that to the little dinky black spot on your map, then you might feel safe in using the grid reference from the map (converting it to griddle secure coding first), to transmit as a fire mission over the net. Usually, only to find out that the freakin resources are already in use by someone else.

To be honest, I really don't have much of a problem with how LOS and use of it in the game for indirect fire works. The tough part is getting into a position close enough to the bad guys without being seen, or buying the farm, so that your LOS you have is effective enough to call the fire mission and provide laterally and distance corrections.

Anyway, just my two cents worth from an old fart ..

Regards,

Doug

[Rocky Balboa]

There are a few issues with calling for fire by map coordinates only. As BD mentioned the first problem is in order to accurately hit that building or crossroads, you have to know where your tube and the target is exactly on the map. In WW2 troops didn't have gps and maps where 1:2500 scale and not accurate enough to pinpoint exact locations.

But even if you could pinpoint your exact spot on the map that building your trying to hit could be off by 50-100 meters. Even with the most accurate modern day maps, there is still a difference between real positioning (round earth) and map position (round earth converted to a flat map).

This is why you need a spotter. The spotter can give the mortar team/gun the map coordinates to the target and that hopefully gets you in the general area. Then the spotter makes adjustments until the rounds are landing where they need to land exactly. If the spotter wants to mark that as a TRP the he relays that to the mortar team and they mark their gun/tube settings.

But even if you have preregistered a TRP why would you want to fire and possibly waste ammo or worse kill your own troops or civilians with out having a spotter tell you that its ok to fire?

[Seedorf81]

It seems that there is a little misconception in regard to my "mortar by mapcoordinates"question.

It has not been my goal to get indiscriminate use of artyfire in the game. I was wondering about real ww2situations. There must have been plenty situations where a CONSTANT (sorry, didn't mention that before) view of the required target wasn't necessary, or practised.

When I go around a corner (from whatever obstacle) or come over the crest of a hill and somebody starts shooting at me, I would get really fast back in cover. There is a good chance that I saw, heard or felt, where the enemy is, and otherwise I do have a reasonable suspicion where he may be. So, I look at my map and ask the artyboys to put some metal on the suspected terrain. I will only peek again after the rounds have fallen; certainly not all the time.

If CMBN doesn't apply this for reasons of gamepleasure and/or playability I can understand that. I just wanted to know how these ww2grunts did it.

(I know that when the Alllies entered Germany, and they didn't have to worry

anymore about damaging "friendly people's possessions", they did use incriminate artyfire whenever they SUSPECTED even the least of enemy opposition.)

[Rocky Balboa]

When I go around a corner (from whatever obstacle) or come over the crest of a hill and somebody starts shooting at me, I would get really fast back in cover. There is a good chance that I saw, heard or felt, where the enemy is, and otherwise I do have a reasonable suspicion where he may be. So, I look at my map and ask the artyboys to put some metal on the suspected terrain. I will only peek again after the rounds have fallen; certainly not all the time.

In this situation you are the spotter and unless you can adjust fire for the arty then those rounds are going to be wildly inaccurate and depending on how close you are to the target and how accurate you are a coming up with the correct target coordinates you could be eating those rounds as they fall :eek: .

Please read my previous post on the difference between real world positioning and map positioning.

[YankeeDog]

In this situation you are the spotter and unless you can adjust fire for the arty then those rounds are going to be wildly inaccurate and depending on how close you are to the target and how accurate you are a coming up with the correct target coordinates you could be eating those rounds as they fall :eek: .

Please read my previous post on the difference between real world positioning and map positioning.

Yep. Seedfor, I think you have an overly optimistic view of how quickly and accurately even light mortar fire can be called in without observation of spotting rounds. Even today, with GPS etc., uncorrected blind map fire is usually avoided because it's very likely to be off-target. In the WWII era, it was even less likely to hit near the intended aim point. Light mortars don't have a very large area of effect, so even a modest error in targeting can render them pretty much ineffective. Larger stuff has a broader area of effect, but also a larger potential error.

Just for fun, try a couple of "Emergency" strikes in CMBN. These are intended to represent uncorrected blind map fire and will give you some idea of what the impact point error can be like for strikes like this.

Uncorrected, blind map fire was used in WWII, but more typically for larger, longer range shoots into areas where there was little to no chance of hitting friendlies if the strike was off by a bit. If you're conducting a battalion 105mm shoot into a suspected enemy assembly area with an area of effect of several thousand square meters, having the impact zone off by a couple of hundred meters one way or the other isn't such a big deal. But if you're trying to hit an enemy MG nest in the next bocage line that you just caught a glimpse of before ducking back behind cover with 60mm or 81mm fire, if the impact point is even 50m off, you're probably wasting shells (not to mention possibly putting friendlies at risk).

[Crushingleeek]

What would this solve? The primary issue, as noted, is the player's god-like perspective and ability to see everything that is happening on the battlefield that any of his units can see, anywhere.

One could argue that you are still being gamey and unrealistically god-like by knowing that one unit, let us say out of C2 contact, is under fire from an enemy unit and then moving an FO team into position to observe that area from which fire is coming. How could the FO team known about the distress the out of contact unit was enduring?

Thus, abstracting that lack of knowledge is just a nuisance to players who inevitably, are going to move that FO into position, which if you don't want to be a god-like commander, is unrealistic.

So, since both 1) allowing mortarfire w/o LOS and 2) moving an FO unit into position to direct fire for an out of contact team is gamey, might as well allow both, and let the true diehards resist the temptation (although no one would.)

[Crushingleeek]

Why would a mortar unit target a location out of its own LOS if it had no idea any enemy was there? *Somebody* with a C2 link to the mortar has to observe the enemy, and let the mortar know that it would be a good idea to drop shells in the area. How else would it happen?

For a case where a non-FO/non-HQ unit is under fire, but is in C2 contact, why can't they radio in approximate coordinates of suspected enemy? It makes perfect sense that they could do this, but if they have no LOS, they can not redirect fire to improve accuracy (unless shells are falling somewhere they can see and obviously not on their suspected target). Also add on an accuracy penalty for such orders to compensate for the gamey knowledge of the map.

Blind fire is realistic, observing and spotting for them is not. Both of these in an ideal simulation should be reflected.

my arguments are theoretical, i'm not faulting the designers, but if feasible to change, I would definitely appreciate.

[YankeeDog]

One could argue that you are still being gamey and unrealistically god-like by knowing that one unit, let us say out of C2 contact, is under fire from an enemy unit and then moving an FO team into position to observe that area from which fire is coming. How could the FO team known about the distress the out of contact unit was enduring?

Thus, abstracting that lack of knowledge is just a nuisance to players who inevitably, are going to move that FO into position, which if you don't want to be a god-like commander, is unrealistic.

So, since both 1) allowing mortarfire w/o LOS and 2) moving an FO unit into position to direct fire for an out of contact team is gamey, might as well allow both, and let the true diehards resist the temptation (although no one would.)

Faulty reasoning. If both the sink and the toilet are leaking, if we only have the tools to fix sink this means we fix neither?

Requiring the player to at least take the time to move a FO/HQ into LOS slows down the process of reacting to new intel. This is realistic and appropriate. CM's C2 model, while the most complex I have ever seen in a wargame, does not represent all modes of communication between units. For example, runners and land wires are not represented, both of which were used fairly extensively in WWII.

A player using his god-like perspective to immediately reacting to a new enemy contact gained by an out of C2 OP unit and FO or HQ into position to call artillery probably isn't completely realistic. But this, at the very least, is an improvement over simply allowing him to call in artillery immediately based on the information gained from the OP. At least in the abstract, it slows down how quickly the player can react, and the player's actions could be interpreted to represent alternate (usually slower) methods of C2 coming into play.

For a case where a non-FO/non-HQ unit is under fire, but is in C2 contact, why can't they radio in approximate coordinates of suspected enemy? It makes perfect sense that they could do this, but if they have no LOS, they can not redirect fire to improve accuracy (unless shells are falling somewhere they can see and obviously not on their suspected target). Also add on an accuracy penalty for such orders to compensate for the gamey knowledge of the map.

Well, first of all, wrt infantry units at least, fairly few non-FO, non-HQ units have radios, so you're talking about a pretty small set of units currently can't call in artillery strikes, but even have the comms equipment to theoretically do so. But more importantly, even in today's much more highly trained, educated professional army, calling in Artillery is a fairly complicated skill, and only certain soldiers are trained to do it well. In WWII, the soldiers trained and knowledgeable in how to do this was much more limited -- officers and specialized FO units, mostly.

Of course, and especially in the U.S. and Commonwealth forces, any untrained private who got his hands on a radio could, in theory, call in artillery if he managed to get an artillery battery on the other end of the line (and bear in mind that operating a radio was also a fairly specialized skill in 1944). Privates calling in arty strikes actually did happen on occasion in WWII, but it was pretty rare and required a lot of talking through procedure, not unlike a general aviation pilot who's never flown anything larger than a Cessna 182 landing a 747. It can be done. It's not easy and it takes some help from the control tower.

IMHO, this sort of thing might occasionally come into play in CM, but only rarely and therefore probably isn't really worth the effort to code. Other stuff (COVER ARMOR ARCS PLEASE) is much higher priority.

[Erwin]

I doubt if it's "realistic" but an effective tactic is to call for prep fire turn one on an unseen location, then move units to LOS of that location to correct the fire. Also, one can even move units close to that location to determine if there is any enemy there at all... saving ammo.

It seems to be accurate and even quicker(?) when one adjusts a prep fire order than a regular order made during turns 2-onwards. I wonder if correcting a prep fire is treated as if there was a TRP at the new strike location??

[Brindlewolf]

Blindfire is in no way realistic.FOs in WW2 were normally artillery officers assigned to infantry units.They had their own vehicles with maps and direct links to their original brigade or outfit.Sure anyone could get on a radio but without the training or practice what exactly would you be requesting.Not every soldier on the battlefield had their own personal map thus this was down to FOs or Officers.

There were many cases of FOs being KIA and arty barrages not being able to be halted or adjusted.Mainly due to radios being damaged or not enough sufficient communication,codewords, co-ordinates etc etc

If you're in an empty desert and call for arty or an Apache strike,where exactly would you have the stuff dropped without a map and the proper co-ordinates.

[womble]

So, since both 1) allowing mortarfire w/o LOS and 2) moving an FO unit into position to direct fire for an out of contact team is gamey, might as well allow both, and let the true diehards resist the temptation (although no one would.)

Aside from your parenthetical (which is reason enough, IMO), it's a large battlefield and a small force where you can't hear an intense firefight (or tank main gun) from pretty much anywhere. So it's not so far beyond reasonable that a Forward Observer might set off towards the noise to see what they could see. And if the FO is currently immersed in such a ruckus that they can't determine (with their trained FO ESP ) where the trouble appears to be going down, they're probably calling in a strike already, so won't want to displace.

There are also some abstractions in the C2 model that aren't represented in the interface: no runners appear on the map, though they're assumed to be active, for example. Perhaps scout teams have flares they pop to let their COs know they've found something worth running over and shooting up.

[Crushingleeek]

all valid points, I see them, esp. with regular infantry not being trained to call in arty.

I still have an issue with any arty-capable unit being required to see their target though.

You can imagine a defensive scenario where the defenders are, in fact, very knowledgeable about their terrain. Sound contact around some terrain barrier is established, and the FO knows where that must be emanating from - the small town just beyond the ridge. He knows what the coordinates are, and can call them in. But instead, as it is right now, he has to risk his life to get close to the down by getting up on that adjacent ridge (not to mention, closer to the arty target).

Sure, again, he cannot spot for the arty, but even without seeing the town, he should be able to direct fire there.

[Rocky Balboa]

all valid points, I see them, esp. with regular infantry not being trained to call in arty.

I still have an issue with any arty-capable unit being required to see their target though.

You can imagine a defensive scenario where the defenders are, in fact, very knowledgeable about their terrain. Sound contact around some terrain barrier is established, and the FO knows where that must be emanating from - the small town just beyond the ridge. He knows what the coordinates are, and can call them in. But instead, as it is right now, he has to risk his life to get close to the down by getting up on that adjacent ridge (not to mention, closer to the arty target).

Sure, again, he cannot spot for the arty, but even without seeing the town, he should be able to direct fire there.

This is why the game includes TRP(target reference points). These represent preregistered fires that don't require a spotter or direct LOS. When calling indirect fire and using a TRP the fire comes in very quickly and very accurately.

All well designed defensive plans should include a few of these on suspected enemy avenues of approach.

[Crushingleeek]

Agree. I have been including them abundantly in my new campaign, but I get the feeling that they are often forgotten in the scenarios i've played. Is that just me?

[YankeeDog]

Agree. I have been including them abundantly in my new campaign, but I get the feeling that they are often forgotten in the scenarios i've played. Is that just me?

I'll definitely agree with this -- from a realism viewpoint, it should actually be rare to see a scenario involving a set-up defense without at least a TRP or two. If the defender has had enough time to dig foxholes, he's had enough time to register artillery & mortar targets.

[Rocky Balboa]

Agree. I have been including them abundantly in my new campaign, but I get the feeling that they are often forgotten in the scenarios i've played. Is that just me?

Even when including TRP's in a defense I will normally always have a scout team(OP) forward who can observe the location covered by the TRP and the purpose for this is 2 fold.

First This is realistically the way they would have been used. Even if you have preregistered targets, you still need to know when to call the fires in so I use the scouts as an op to trigger the fires at the proper time.

Second I do so enjoy seeing the carnage and destruction caused by a well executed indirect fire attack

[Pak40]

Agree. I have been including them abundantly in my new campaign, but I get the feeling that they are often forgotten in the scenarios i've played. Is that just me?

But since you can plan artillery in the setup phase of any battle on to any blind spot, it pretty much acts as pre-registered artillery.