Brixia Mortars - Realistically Portrayed In Game?

[JasonC]

Medium term or longer, I think Battlefront has actually been great at listening to player feedback and refining their games. I have no complaints on that score. As a community of players, we have to report the behaviors we are seeing in games, both by testing and by AARs, complete with every trick we have collectively found to bend the controls the system offers to us. And as a quite informed community about the real history and tactics, we can report the correspondance or lack thereof between the tactics we wind up having an incentive to use in the games, with our understanding (for what it is worth) of historical tactics. I don't expect the designers to react to every piece of feedback because plenty of it doesn't merit it, and I don't expect them to react to even the best feedback rapidly, because programming is a real job and these things take time.

Let's just do a good job reporting what we see and what we'd like to see, and trust the system.

[c3k]

Medium term or longer, I think Battlefront has actually been great at listening to player feedback and refining their games. I have no complaints on that score. As a community of players, we have to report the behaviors we are seeing in games, both by testing and by AARs, complete with every trick we have collectively found to bend the controls the system offers to us. And as a quite informed community about the real history and tactics, we can report the correspondance or lack thereof between the tactics we wind up having an incentive to use in the games, with our understanding (for what it is worth) of historical tactics. I don't expect the designers to react to every piece of feedback because plenty of it doesn't merit it, and I don't expect them to react to even the best feedback rapidly, because programming is a real job and these things take time.

Let's just do a good job reporting what we see and what we'd like to see, and trust the system.

This is exactly how BF.C works.

They will not change coded behavior unless a clearly shown error is presented. That filters out spurious requests. For example, if one player has all his men killed when they're hiding in a building, BF.C will not recode buildings. If it is then shown that this is repeatable AND non-realistic, then BF.C will attempt to solve the behavior.

The solution may not be workable. There are limits to computing power, coding, and gameplay.

If it is solvable, then the solution must be tested to ensure it doesn't "break" something else.

Then they have to decide how and when to introduce it. A "patch-a-day" approach would be horrible. A "once-in-a-decade" policy would be equally bad. So, multiple solutions are saved up for a large patch which resolves multiple issues.

Finally, it all has to fit into the work schedule. There are many cool things going on at BF.C. Fixing mortars, for example, is not the only item out there.

In sum:

1) Find the behavior.

2) Repeat the behavior. Reliably, and consistently, if possible. Show it.

3) Isolate it from other variables. (Unit type, terrain, etc.)

4) Show how the behavior in-game deviates from real life.

5) Wait for the patch.

If a player can just do step 1 and post it, it will get looked at. The more steps that a player can do, the faster it will get included in an eventual patch.

[poesel]

I wanted to know what the actual difference in the dispersion between doing a point and an area strike is. Distance was 860 m with all regular/0/0, no wind. Both strikes were ordered by a FO.

I had an old test with German vs US mortars which I used. The Germans had 112 rounds (4 teams), the US 100 rounds (two teams) of 81mm. There was no visible difference in the outcome. The shots came from the left.

Point strike:

Area strike (80m diameter):

Which is the dispersion that would have happened in RL?

P.S. 'funny' accident: the wall between the teams had a gap that I had overlooked. One US and two German teams ignored their orders and fired on the enemy. Both had enough time to fire their shots - the result looked the same on both sides:

Ouch!

Edit: the point strike was also much faster. I didn't take the exact time, but point was about 2 minutes and area 6 minutes! So the time to change the aim to spread out the rounds is modelled!

[akd]

So is per shell lethality correct? What about soft ground conditions having no effect?

Sorry for the late response. My previous response was not directed to you. Per shell lethality is a complex issue that is not going be easily tested. However, the issue of lethality on soft ground relative to hard ground is more straightforward. There should be a marked difference. Can you PM so I can take a look at your test scenario?

I wanted to know what the actual difference in the dispersion between doing a point and an area strike is. Distance was 860 m with all regular/0/0, no wind. Both strikes were ordered by a FO.

I had an old test with German vs US mortars which I used. The Germans had 112 rounds (4 teams), the US 100 rounds (two teams) of 81mm. There was no visible difference in the outcome. The shots came from the left.

Point strike:

Area strike (80m diameter):

Which is the dispersion that would have happened in RL?

For a single tube? Point is probably closer.

P.S. 'funny' accident: the wall between the teams had a gap that I had overlooked. One US and two German teams ignored their orders and fired on the enemy. Both had enough time to fire their shots - the result looked the same on both sides:

You know you can have German and US mortars on the same side, right?

[poesel]

For a single tube? Point is probably closer.

For attacking a platoon? I've made this test because VABs test was criticized for using an area attack for his test. As I understood from comments here was that in RL the guy at the tube would wriggle it a bit after each shot if the target would be spread out like a platoon in the open. So it would look rather like area in CM.

Also, as I wrote, it was two tubes US and four for the Germans. The patterns looked the same.

You know you can have German and US mortars on the same side, right?

No - how?

[Apocal]

The general feeling amongst posters seems to be that light mortars are just too potent. I recently found an article discussing light mortars online. While the article didn't provide any of the technical details I was looking for, it certainly conveys the impression that light mortars are indeed very potent and deadly weapons in RL. Here are a couple of quotes from the article

Be careful, modern mortars have become much more effective since they received variable time (airburst) and superquick (round "digs" less before exploding) fuzes. They also have greater range, moderately better accuracy and precision, etc.

Also, I believe the following clip demonstrates just how rapidly light mortar fire can be adjusted onto a target. WARNING while there is no gorrey imagery in the following clip, some people may still find it disturbing.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b1_1312498613

Disclaimer: I cannot definatively say that the explosions seen in the clip are the results of light mortar fire but the 'splashes' do appear to be consistent with those from a light mortar. Also, the lack of smoke and dust clouds prior to the initial two explosions do seem to indicate that these are the initial spotting rounds although it is possible that the effects from prior rounds may not have been caught on camera.

I can definitely say that is not the splash of a "light" mortar, unless you think 81/82mm is light. I'm not totally sure it's actually indirect fire at all, it could easily be a tank round, RPG, etc.

[Redwolf]

Be careful, modern mortars have become much more effective since they received variable time (airburst) and superquick (round "digs" less before exploding) fuzes. They also have greater range, moderately better accuracy and precision, etc.

Even the explosives themselves are more potent (one reason for the greater range, but the same applies to the shell's HE).