Another Artillery Observer Comment

[MG TOW]

Requiring a forward observer to have eyes on the impact zone seems normal enough. But I am questioning the requirement to have Line of site on both the origin point of impact and the end point ...be it the outer diameter for area call ins or the end of the line for linear call ins.

i know arty is handled well in the game, but I'm thinking an observer can see the high plumes of the explosians, and can judge distance, he is an observer after-all. So he knows he needs his arty walking linear west 75 meters for example. Even though he can't see 75 meters west of the origin, he should still be able to set the end of line or diameter.

[Bradley Dick]

That's a good point. If you can call down fire onto a visible point, it's quite possible to correct beyond your visible range using adjustments. Being able to correct artillery not by a point on the map but by actual adjustments would enable us to set up walking fire (which I would love to see).

[Crushingleeek]

Requiring a forward observer to have eyes on the impact zone seems normal enough. But I am questioning the requirement to have Line of site on both the origin point of impact and the end point ...be it the outer diameter for area call ins or the end of the line for linear call ins.

i know arty is handled well in the game, but I'm thinking an observer can see the high plumes of the explosians, and can judge distance, he is an observer after-all. So he knows he needs his arty walking linear west 75 meters for example. Even though he can't see 75 meters west of the origin, he should still be able to set the end of line or diameter.

I think something like this is what I would love and did a bad job of conveying in the other thread

[womble]

An observer can call fire on points that are "just outside" their LOS field. This applies to the end point too. Remember that one of the reasons for the limit is that blind fire has as much chance of causing friendly casualties as enemy.

[Crushingleeek]

i'm gettin suckered into the same sentiments on a new thread

[Redjac]

I find myself using mostly point target for this very reason

[zukkov]

when you think about it, it's pretty fascinating how the hell they managed to get artillery on a target in the first place, much less in a circle or line pattern.

[MG TOW]

when you think about it, it's pretty fascinating how the hell they managed to get artillery on a target in the first place, much less in a circle or line pattern.

Aren't the patterns made by adjustment after the fact. I don't know myself, except if I wanted my mortar rounds to start here and end there in RL I made adustments on the fly. Maybe someone here knows if they had pre-ordained patterns back then, or now for that matter, I would be curious.

edit: Ofcourse I would never want that much detail in a game and such adjustments coud be abstracted as is in the game.

[zukkov]

yah, i was speaking from total ignorance in the ways of artillery except that i know it works. i remember watching a live fire demonstration once on ft. hood. they had mortars mounted on tracks roll up one at a time, fire, then take off again. i swear it took so long for the rounds to land that for awhile i thought they missed the ground. lol..