arty question for RL experts

[BDW]

arty continues to bve my #1 source of frustration. I can literally live with all other "issues". Loving CMFI!

I'm wondering if my annoyance is well-founded or not, from a realism standpoint. My questions:

1. is it realistic for someone making an intial Fire Suport Mission Request to start over at the beginning if they realize they want to tweak the arty mission they are ordering (e.g. getting to the Duration screen and then deciding you want to move the target a bit)

2. once the Request is sent, is it realistic for the observer to NOT be able ot increase/decrease the number of guns or rate of fire? (e.g. you tageted Harass with some big arty that took 15 turns to arrive. By then, you realize the area you targeted is the main line of attack for your opponent, so you want to phone the arty command and yell "drop it all now as fast as possible"

Wondering if I am right to be annoyed by the UI in this respect?

[JonS]

CM is a game with sim leanings. There are always going to be things that aren't quite right.

Your point 1. is sort of valid, and sort of not. When prepping for a mission the FO and his assistant will independantly determine the target location and other firemission parameters (ammo, impact area, and whatnot). They will - briefly - discuss it, then the FO will send his decision through to the battery over the radio. There is some to-and-fro in the discussion, and the FO also has the opportunity to amend things once they've been sent over the radio. However, from a UI standpoint, the way CM handles this is reasonable.

2. No, it's not strictly realistic, but on the other hand you CAN increase/decrease the number of guns and ROF in CM. The mechanism for that, in CM, is a bit clunky, (adjust mission and/or cease fire and start over) but you can get what you're after with a reasonable delay. You probably just need to slow down and ensure all your ducks are in a row before pushing on.

Overall, it's worth bearing in mind that artillery in CM is far faster and more flexible than real artillery. It sometimes seems to me that players are after perfect efficiency from all their in-game resources at all times. But artillery - and battles in general - just aren't like that. In the real world comms get screwed up all the time, Private Snooks falls asleep behind the hedge, Corporal Numbnuts neglects to ensure his section is fully bombed up, the jeep's engine just stops for some godforsaken reason, 3rd platoon gets lost because the new Lt. is an idiot who can't read a map, B Company Commander has the screaming runs because he didn't clean his dixie properly, and so on.

Be thankful you don't have to deal with any of that in CM.

[BDW]

Thansk for the reply.

#1: OK it sounds like this clunky, and probably on the list somewhere at BF to improve, but higher priority items (just a guess!). IMHO, if the game is going to allow me to do something, it should make it as painless as possible from a UI standpoint.

#2: I am not able to use the Adjust command to do anything other than alter the target area. Instead, I have to cancel the Mission entirely and start from scratch. That seems unrealistic to me. Why are these adjustments not available when using the Adjust command? This is especially painful when the dust/smoke is kicking up and you no longer have LOS to the inital target area, which means if you cancel the mission, you cannot retarget the same area without waiting for everything to clear. It seems logical to just be able to increase tubes/volume/rate of fire via the Adjust command.

[JonS]

#2: I am not able to use the Adjust command to do anything other than alter the target area.

Right, but that's still an amendment to the mission.

I have to cancel the Mission entirely and start from scratch. That seems unrealistic to me. Why are these adjustments not available when using the Adjust command? ... It seems logical to just be able to increase tubes/volume/rate of fire via the Adjust command.

In real life, sure. In the game, I just view it as friction. To paraphrase Clausewitz; you don't always get to do what you want, when you want, or the way you want.

As I said before: overall, artillery in CM is a lot faster and more flexible than in real life. Given that, I don't think that increasing speed and flexibility even more should be a priority

In my perfect world, I would love for the CM artillery system to have a fully fleshed out fire planning capability available to either side at game start. This would allow the engagement of multiple locations by each fire unit in a timed sequence, allow detailed specification of FFE and rates for each target, and have a time span that encompassed the entire scenario if that's how the player wants to use his artillery. The flipside would be that once the GO button had been pressed, the only targets able to be engaged would be point targets (which are effectively circular targets with a radius of 35m), and only point-detonating HE or smoke. It's plausible that even the rate of fire and duration should be constrained or even fixed. This is because that once a battle kicks of, generally FOs are restricted to engaging immediate neutralisation targets, with a highly templated method of engagement. So, a lot more flexibility at-start, and a lot less flexibility once things are under way.

But I doubt I'll ever see my ideal

[Michael Emrys]

In the real world comms get screwed up all the time, Private Snooks falls asleep behind the hedge, Corporal Numbnuts neglects to ensure his section is fully bombed up, the jeep's engine just stops for some godforsaken reason, 3rd platoon gets lost because the new Lt. is an idiot who can't read a map, B Company Commander has the screaming runs because he didn't clean his dixie properly, and so on.

Be thankful you don't have to deal with any of that in CM.

Coming up in v3, entirely NEW levels of realism!...

Michael

[Badger73]

arty continues to bve my #1 source of frustration. I can literally live with all other "issues". Loving CMFI!

I'm wondering if my annoyance is well-founded or not, from a realism standpoint. My questions:

1. is it realistic for someone making an intial Fire Suport Mission Request to start over at the beginning if they realize they want to tweak the arty mission they are ordering (e.g. getting to the Duration screen and then deciding you want to move the target a bit)

2. once the Request is sent, is it realistic for the observer to NOT be able ot increase/decrease the number of guns or rate of fire? (e.g. you tageted Harass with some big arty that took 15 turns to arrive. By then, you realize the area you targeted is the main line of attack for your opponent, so you want to phone the arty command and yell "drop it all now as fast as possible"

Wondering if I am right to be annoyed by the UI in this respect?

I opine that the UI is realistic enough. In effect, artillery is a very mechanical combat operation; you place your order, it runs through the assembly line, and the finished product pops out as specified. JohnS already mentioned friction.

To point #1, a change order is best handled as a new request. When the fire mission came in, the Fire Direction Center begins plotting the solution at the same time as the gun bunnies prepare the rounds to be fired and identify the adjusting gun. To plot a change on the fire direction board is actually more time consuming and more prone to human error than starting over from the beginning with the updated target information.

To point #2, it is realistic enough per WW2 C2. Remember, that the gun bunnies only laid aside the rounds required per your initial request to "harass". They need more time to obtain and prepare enough rounds for the changed requirement.

It is more realistic to expect that a "repeat" fire mission (fire again on a previously fired target) should go faster but then I can deal with "friction happens"; things like other priorities of fire now precede my repeat mission, or the repeat mission is being called in by a different FO from a different location, or a different battery altogether was assigned and needs to fire my repeat mission.

Artillery is a wonderful friend in a firefight, best imaged as a big and clumsy hulking bruiser, not as quick or nimble. Adjusting Air Support is even harder . .

To your last point, it is all right to be annoyed when plans go awry. Always have a plan B (and C and D) when you can. Good luck and good gaming!

[BDW]

Thanks for the comment. I'm actually less annoyed now! Just to be clear: my comment #1 was a pure UI/UX comment. From a UI/UX perscpective, I think it would be handy to be able to adjust all of the criteria for an arty request, in any order, before you hit the "confirm" button. So, you could change your mind as you are entering the request, without having to start all over from the beginning. There would no impact on the game other than spending less time creating an arty mission.

[WriterJWA]

Here is the book method on making a correction in the process of giving a call-for-fire request:

--------------

4-8. CORRECTIONS OF ERRORS

a. Errors are sometimes made in transmitting data or by

the FDC personnel in reading back the data. If the

observer realizes that he has made an error in his

transmission or that the FDC has made an error in the

read back, he announces CORRECTION and transmits the

correct data.

EXAMPLE

The observer transmitted SHIFT KNOWN POINT 2,

OVER, DIRECTION 4680 . . .. He immediately realizes

that he should have sent DIRECTION 5680. He

announces CORRECTION, DIRECTION 5680, After

receiving the correct read back, he may continue to

send the rest of the call for fire.

b. When an error has been made in a subelement and the

correction of that subelement will affect other transmitted

data, CORRECTION is announced. Then the correct

subelement and all affected data are transmitted in the

proper sequence.

EXAMPLE

The observer transmitted LEFT 200, ADD 400, UP 40,

OVER. He then realizes that he should have sent DROP

400, To correct this element, he sends CORRECTION

LEFT 200, DROP 400, UP 40, OVER. The observer

must read back the entire subelement, because the

LEFT 200 and UP 40 will be canceled if they are not

included in the corrected transmission.

--------------

This involves adjusting the mission during the process of calling in the supporting arm. Just a little extra info!

[Rocky Balboa]

I opine that the UI is realistic enough. In effect, artillery is a very mechanical combat operation; you place your order, it runs through the assembly line, and the finished product pops out as specified. JohnS already mentioned friction.

To point #1, a change order is best handled as a new request. When the fire mission came in, the Fire Direction Center begins plotting the solution at the same time as the gun bunnies prepare the rounds to be fired and identify the adjusting gun. To plot a change on the fire direction board is actually more time consuming and more prone to human error than starting over from the beginning with the updated target information.

To point #2, it is realistic enough per WW2 C2. Remember, that the gun bunnies only laid aside the rounds required per your initial request to "harass". They need more time to obtain and prepare enough rounds for the changed requirement.

It is more realistic to expect that a "repeat" fire mission (fire again on a previously fired target) should go faster but then I can deal with "friction happens"; things like other priorities of fire now precede my repeat mission, or the repeat mission is being called in by a different FO from a different location, or a different battery altogether was assigned and needs to fire my repeat mission.

Artillery is a wonderful friend in a firefight, best imaged as a big and clumsy hulking bruiser, not as quick or nimble. Adjusting Air Support is even harder . .

To your last point, it is all right to be annoyed when plans go awry. Always have a plan B (and C and D) when you can. Good luck and good gaming!

What you say here is correct but in addition keep in mind that in RL a battery will almost certainly have fire requests coming from other units and may or may not be dedicated just to your attack or defense. What happens if FO (Baker) requests a fire mission and then after that mission is fired the battery is now busy processing a fire request for FO(Charlie)?

If FO (Baker) has priority of fires and he wants to re-fire a previous mission then Charlies request gets dropped and the guns need to be relaid to the previous target. However if Baker doesn't have priority of fires then they will continue with Charlies request before they can process Bakers request. In either case all this takes time and is simulated by having to go through the complete call for fire and delay.

The game implements TRP's which can be purchased to simulate indirect fires that are more responsive to your fire requests. All in all I think BF did a pretty good job in how they have implemented indirect fires. As someone else mentioned on the whole indirect fire in CM is probably more flexible than was the actual case.