Mortar and artillery use -A scenario designer point of view

[snake_eye]

Difficult to make a comparison between the WWII, real time mortar and artillery call fire mission and the way it is handle in the game. There are so many to say and we can find very good arguments, since the LOS limitation is not what we did entirely expect.

I have found in many battles including in my own scenarios design, that it takes time to plot a fire mission and that we have to wait precious minutes before it is delivered. More than often the results are not up the expectancy that we have put on it. To start another fire mission if the ammo level authorizes it, takes again a lot of time. During that time, the troops are staying put. That delay, has us player being obliged to do weird thing near the end of the time limit in order to try to gain the objectives. More than often, that results in higher casualties than if we had assaulted right away the objectives, since we can not move using every conceivable ground cover available, by lack of time.

Someone wrote rightfully that if you send a shell on a pre registered location, you don’t need to have a LOS. The same applies during the setup phase, if you have artillery and mortars assets available, from the beginning. However, the mortars must be deployed and should have a command link (verbal and or radio).

Once you get into the battle, you can only call a fire mission with an officer (battalion, Company and or platoon officer) or with the FO.

At that time you need either, to have a good LOS and or a pre registered icon near the area you wish to shell. More, the observer must have a command link with the mortars and or the artillery. Otherwise its call will be denied.

That is why, as a scenario designer, I have in mind two things

First the pre registered icons are not always well seen on the map. As a matter of fact, many times I saw them too late and the battle being engaged, I can not move them anymore to a spot of my choice.

Sometimes I only see them, while scrolling the battle ground at the end of the game, since they were hidden by trees, foliages and or among houses, barely noticeable.

If someone could provide us with a high visibility pre registered Icon mod that would be great.

I also think that it could be wise to gather together all the icons in plain view on the map (have a word on the briefing about it) and allow the player to put them where they feel it will be best. But, for doing so the designer has to draw a set up area allowing for that. That might not be always possible or wanted depending on the scenario design.

Second, while the LOS obligation is not the most annoying thing for me while playing, the fact that to call a shot, I have to bring an officer and or an FO in a suitable observatory area certainly is.

It takes time to move them around cautiously, only to find that they get shot at, rather quickly once they are in the desired position and or that they can not see entirely the intended fire zone. What is also frustrating is the fact, that in a platoon, only the officer is able to call a fire mission. If he is shot, there is no way to call a fire mission.

The player has to keep in mind, that for a mortar fire mission, the officer gets not a so long delay. But, if he is calling artillery, usually he gets a longer delay than the FO. That is correct for me.

To summarize, I don’t seen any game default in the way the use of the mortars, artillery and even ground attack fighters assets are being handled and reproduced.

They somehow take in account the numerous difficulties that someone could have found in a WWII battle configuration.

I really think that the player is wrongly thinking that these assets are unbeatable and that they are the answer to annihilate the enemy once for all and get a major victory.

The truth is that I have found the mortars and or artillery assets suitable to prevent reinforcement to come forward, to break an assault (if within the time limit and the advance path ) and to saturate an area. However, when at the setup I designate an area, where I think that there is a concentration of troops, I have found that the result was surprising. Troops in foxholes managed to survive, rather well. The same applies with troops hidden in houses. Besides one or two eventually collapsing many troops are still there, when my assault came.

When attempting to double that fire concentration, once the battle is played, I have found that the time it takes to get a suitable FO in place (if not already there) and the time it takes to deliver the shells are very often resulting in a non feasibility in the desired employment of the artillery.

For these reasons, having found that it takes time to use artillery and being not entirely satisfied by the lethality results, I use smoke, if available and if I have only one artillery battery. If I have two or more of them, I deliver, using two batteries, high explosives shells at first and second smoke within a slight delay. Doing so, the defender are staying low and or just recovering, while my troops are hidden by smoke during most of the approach of their assault. I just have to be careful with the wind drift and think of it before plotting the fire mission. However, the fire mission and the assault have to be synchronized in order to work best.

The mortars, when they are within the platoon are working better. Smoke can also be used to good effect if available besides explosives rounds.

This is what I think, but you might and surely have better views than mine. Knowing them could be a real asset, while making a scenario in which artillery has a part to play in the battle to be fought.

[Crushingleeek]

I also think that it could be wise to gather together all the icons in plain view on the map (have a word on the briefing about it) and allow the player to put them where they feel it will be best. But, for doing so the designer has to draw a set up area allowing for that. That might not be always possible or wanted depending on the scenario design.

Players can put TRPS anywhere they want on a map. it need not be within setup areas.

[Lanzfeld]

Just to chime in... as far as scenairo designing goes...

I had the idea that you give the AI about 100 TRPs spread out at intervals. You see, human players can kinda guess or anticipate where an attacking force is heading and the AI cannot. When I play the AI they almost NEVER use arty (on or off map) against me probably because the AI will order a strike but it never developes into an actual strike probably because it switches targets every turn or the spotter is killed. A human is much more careful with spotters. If you gave the AI 100 TRP's it could get FFE much quicker and be a more realistic challange for a human vs AI.

[Sublime]

+1 to the visible TRPs idea. Often the only way I can figure out exactly where it is is by plotting a fire mission and just moving the cursor around until it changes to a spot where I can actually target.. (all of this out of LoS of course)

[snake_eye]

Players can put TRPS anywhere they want on a map. it need not be within setup areas.

You are right, I made a mistake writing about the necessity of having them within the setup area. We know that TRP’s can be moved during the setup phase. The problem is to see them sufficiently on the map in order to do so.

That is why I suggest to have high visibility Icons or to gather all of them in one area where they can be spotted easily. It will then be the player choice to move them where ever he wants.

[snake_eye]

About the TRP's used by the A.I.

I have done so in a coming scenario. The A.I FO is doing a splendid job, shelling the registered targets areas. The first time during the test, I was surprised. I am not anymore. The A.I, even takes its time to shell the area when it seems best.

For the rest, the smoke is the best asset for assaulting without getting that many casualties. Not so easy to handle, but believe me it works. that way, I have been able to get to the objective. The high explosives shelling gave small results compare to the smoke. The rockets where worst, they are amazing to see exploding, but they fall every where and no where.

[Bradley Dick]

The rockets where worst, they are amazing to see exploding, but they fall every where and no where.

I'll be damned if that isn't true. Rockets make a great spectacle and shock the enemy, but they don't do much reliably accurate damage.

[Gen Von Television]

I'm just working on a battle I wrote about in other threads too: it's a simple one where one side has to move fast across the map (infantry) and gain an exit, while the other whose only Objective is the enemy moving unit has plenty of heavy mortars and about ten TRPs.

The exiting unit has a very specific crossing point on the map that cannot be avoided with plenty of TRPs around it, and I placed the two Observer Teams in good positions to strike exactly them. Another group of heavy mortars and their two observers are positioned to strike further up the road where the enemy may or may not pass.

I'm still trying to check and modify different AI Plans for both sides: the moving unit is an AI nightmare, since they often end bunched up on the turning points, and have to go Quick on quite exposed terrain: their only chance would be never to stop.

The AI mortars sometime are very effective and timed, but more often than not they do absolutely nothing.

By playing against the AI I can easily win on either sides, but as you very well know, as a designer you quite expect any possible move; in any case for me it's a safe test this battle has a good enough balance so can be played H2H, but I doubt it may be really enjoyable against the AI.

I have the idea that in a like scenario to have the triggers' options would be very handy.

[Boche]

I'll be damned if that isn't true. Rockets make a great spectacle and shock the enemy, but they don't do much reliably accurate damage.

Mission 2, KG Engel... ´´nuff said

loved the way they fell on the town, mopped up so many soldiers.

[Gen Von Television]

The Moaning Minnie were anyway notorious for not being very precise, as all the WWII rockets for that matter: more kind of a 'Terror Weapon' kind, but of course they had tremendous destroying potentials...

[Erwin]

+1 for more visible TRP's at least for the set-up phase. I have also not seen em until into the game. It would also help if designers would tell us we have "X" TRP's in the briefing.

However, ever since CMSF days I tested and found that arty can be quite effective if you use it "right". Unfortunately "right" doesn't necessarily mean "as in RL".

I did a lot of arty tests in CMSF and found that a LOW or (if time is available) HARASS rate of fire will do a lot more killing than high intensity fire over a shorter period - esp vs buildings. (I also found that in CMSF, 120mm was more effective than 122mm. But since we never got CM1 style stats we have no idea what the actual blast effects of any CM2 arty are.)

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'll be damned if that isn't true. Rockets make a great spectacle and shock the enemy, but they don't do much reliably accurate damage.

US T27E2 rockets have about 75% of the lethality of US 81mm mortars, dispersion and blast effects inclusive.

[MikeyD]

From way back in CMSF days scenario designers have been on the horns of a dilemma. Should they go for 'accurate' or 'playable'? If they were to faithfully represent the capabilities of artillery the opponent would be so severly degraded after the initial bombardment that further gameplay would be pointless (which was rather the point of artillery in the first place). Every once in awhile someone would do a 'true representation' artillery scenario just for fun. You sit for ten turns as the far side of the map gets cratered mercilessly. I remember for the (CMSF) Brit module I did a scenario that had artillery rockets raining down on a Brit convoy in the opening move. Some people never forgave me for that scenario.

[Erwin]

I think you guys got it pretty right, in that in any game one has to have a level of abstraction in order to make the game playable and fun.

The only issue is one of imbalance in the levels of realism and abstraction. By that I mean a lot more effort being put into certain areas of the game to make it realistic, and other areas being left abstracted and more "gamey" for whatever reason. This imbalance is what gives rise to 90%+ of the complaints. In a way, it's BF being a victim of its own PR re what an accurate sim the CM2 engine is.

[snake_eye]

Considering the campaign scenario, final testing I am working on, I am a bit disappointed by the effect of the artillery of the US attacking units.

Understand me, to be disappointed does not mean that the game is unrealistic. The game is highly realistic. At least as far as a game, like that one can be. I have to let you know that I plot the artillery during the setup phase to get rid of the difficulty in designing the fire zone. At least for that call. The target is a group of houses standing at the bottom of a ridge and near a bridge that is giving an access into the town that has to be taken.

In order to have my assault platoon, a squad of engineers (needed to blow the houses walls) and an M8 howitzer (for close support) closing in near the houses, I need to shell the area heavily.

Considering that I have 105 mm howitzer with smoke shells and 114 mm T27 xylophone rockets (without smoke), I plot first the HE T27 for a heavy barrage and next the 105mm with smoke shells.

That way, in theory, the houses and their Germans occupants should be pretty much splattered.

Well, as it turns out, the T27 are widely dispersed, they make a splendid 4th of July firework and then the smoke start to hide the ground. Its about time, for the assault to get on its way. Every thing works like in a drill. The troops reach the houses, the M8 comes along unchallenged by distant AT gun. Great, the final assault can begin. The engineers blow a wall, the assault team follows them in. A quick fight and the occupants are overcome.

You think that the same will happen for the other houses. Hell, no the Germans are still there and in the near foxholes they seem unscathed and they let you know they are.

That is why I wrote that in the game the T27 114mm Xylophone rockets are not causing that many casualties. Naturally, for troops caught in the open, that will be another story.

In that particular scenario, my biggest help was the smoke and only it. Without the smoke my casualties will have run high and the houses would not have been reached at all. That is what happened in my previous testing not using it.

About the Moaning minnies they are dreadful. Inaccurate, certainly, but they produce a saturation pattern on their objective at random. I used 215mm (better than the 114mm T27) Nebelwerfer 42’s in “Die Amis Kommen”. They even managed to bring down a vital bridge for the US forces assaulting the town. I really needed that asset to bring to a halt the US Forces in that specific area. It works if you do it right, since they take around 20 minutes to be delivered. Almost a last chance weapon, but what a blowing power!

I feel the same that MickeyD. If in a scenario the forces are shattered by a huge artillery preparation and there is nothing left, besides walking down unchallenged to the objectives there is no pleasure and or accomplishment satisfaction left for the player

A last thought, players should have in mind that troops well hunkered down in foxholes and or in houses are less exposed than in an open ground. They can support a lot of HE pounding.

I don’t know if airburst which are lethal, are well rendered in BF CMSF and Normandy games. The US shells with their proximity fuses were the most feared by the Germans. Technically speaking, the Germans never got to do the same. But since the foxholes are not covered in the game one can assume that it is not done. I have seen however shells exploding over the troops.

Does any one has an idea about that?

[Gen Von Television]

Shells exploding above the ground? I only saw them after I'd hidden the trees and one shell hits one of the tree exploding there (kind of tree burst, but without the tree).

I never noticed a true air burst...

[womble]

I don’t know if airburst which are lethal, are well rendered in BF ...Normandy games. The US shells with their proximity fuses were the most feared by the Germans. Technically speaking, the Germans never got to do the same. But since the foxholes are not covered in the game one can assume that it is not done. I have seen however shells exploding over the troops.

Does any one has an idea about that?

The VT fuse isn't modelled in CM:BN because it wasn't released in Europe until much later in the year, in time for the Bulge. The airbursts you see will be either the occasional successfully-timed time-fuse airburst which are only, IIRC, available as pre-planned bombardment, when you choose "Infantry" target type, or "treebursts" where a fuse hits enough overhead cover to detonate "prematurely". Mortar fuses are lighter than arty fuses in RL (because of the lower firing stresses they have to sustain) and so are, IRL more prone to this behaviour. I don't know if that's modelled in the game. If you're playing with trees not "fully on", you'll often see treebursts that appear to be airbursts.

[snake_eye]

To Gen von television

Thanks for your report. Having doubts I just made some testing. Airburts do exist in B-N.

You will refer to the pictures I shall post soon.

To Womble

Thanks for your very detailed and accurate report. Effectively, I have heard of proximity fuses used, if I don’t do any mistake for the first time in the battles fought around the Saar river crossing and the Siegfried line breakthrough

The testing was made using my impending campaign map and against the St Marcel village that you will have to take in order to secure and get through the bridge leading to the main town, which is your objective.

That test was necessary to see if airburst were present like I have seen them earlier. Gen Von Television and Womble are right when they say that it could have been an explosion seen in trees and or on top of a landscape feature like a house roof.

Two tests were made using the facility given during the setup phase. Besides that I had a TRP icon right in the middle of the street of the St Marcel village.

I used the 105mm howitzer,3 guns, heavy long. For one it was set to general with a 92 meters area and the other ton personnel with a 93 meters area.

The results are convincing. 1 WIA and 2 slight casualties (coloured in yellow) for the General set up shelling with no airburst being seen.

6 WIA, 3 slight casualties, a house being destroyed down to its basement and 6 airbursts being seen on 4 shots being taken (2 airbursts seen on 2 of the pictures and only 1 airburst on the other 2 pictures).

I don’t know how the airbursts are being exactly rendered as far as their lethality is concerned, but they are present in the game when you are using the Personnel setting.

[snake_eye]