Indirect Fire Bug

[Sublime]

Yes I know this has been reported. It was supposedly even fixed. But it definitely has NOT been fixed. In recent PBEMs Ive had indirect artillery strikes occasionally come in wildly off target, as before. Im not talking about spotting rounds, this is FFE on nothing, and the targets are either visible to the FO or near a TRP. The FO has no been under fire in any of these circumstances.

In addition, in a PBEM turn I just played, I noticed my opponent shelling an empty field. I couldnt help myself (though it was nice to see him wasting 81mm) and asked him what he was shooting at. And found out that it wasnt intentional or recon by fire.

BFC please fix or somefink.

[Sublime]

also another interesting note from the same map. the bridges on the map affect the ability to click and select units and targetting. It seems the game 'sees' the bridge as much taller than it is or simply as a block in LOS and you cant target across the bridge (maybe it's only this map..?) or select units. This became noticeable as I defended a series of bridges in this map. I literally have to select the unit and manually move the view to the other side to target something. If I want to select a unit, it's either + or - or moving the view manually to the other side of the bridge. If this was a confusing explanation Ill try to help explaining.

[Paulverisor64]

In CMFI I noticed this type of a thing. It ended up being my own fault.

I submitted my firing plot and waited.

While waiting I observed another bug; my troops were firing even though they absolutely had a tight firing arc.

What did I do? I hid all the troops I wanted to stay concealed.

After seeing several shots hit way off the mark I comprehended that this was because I hid my spotter. When I unhid this unit everything hit quite well.

Perhaps your issue is a CMBN anomoly. I just thought I'd give you another possibility.

[Michael Emrys]

In recent PBEMs Ive had indirect artillery strikes occasionally come in wildly off target, as before. Im not talking about spotting rounds, this is FFE on nothing, and the targets are either visible to the FO or near a TRP.

Just to be sure all the Is are dotted, these wouldn't have been Emergency strikes would they?

Michael

[womble]

also another interesting note from the same map. the bridges on the map affect the ability to click and select units and targetting.

That's just the way bridges are. Nothing whatsoever to do with that specific map.

It seems the game 'sees' the bridge as much taller than it is or simply as a block in LOS and you cant target across the bridge...

It certainly models its shape for the purposes of cursor interaction to be a much larger volume than the graphic occupies. It's avoidable if you change your viewpoint so that you're not trying to interact with anything "behind" the bridge, and I've never had any problem with units firing at aim points that are beyond bridges, once I've actually zoomed in or spun the camera round or whatever was needed to not be "looking" through the bridge's "pseudo-volume".

If this was a confusing explanation Ill try to help explaining.

No, you've mostly got it. It's to do with how the mouse "sees" the bridge, and it's specific to neither your install or the map you're using. Bridges are a bit of a kludge; from what BFC were saying pre-release, we're actually lucky to have them at all, they were that tricky to code, and they've done the best they could compatible with letting us have a game in a reasonable time frame.

[womble]

Just to be sure all the Is are dotted, these wouldn't have been Emergency strikes would they?

Michael

I've seen the same thing, even with fire aimed at a TRP location. TRPs don't need spotters to be "eyes-on", and I have never used "Emergency". By the same token, if the battery "loses a decimal point" or something, there's no mechanism to correct it with a TRP, either, so I don't mind the occasional SNAFU being represented. If that's what it is meant to be.

[Sublime]

no definitely not emergency. if it was that Id assume they fu*ked up in the rush to get the fire out... It was supposedly fixed but its not.

Also just like the crew member detaching himself from an ATG. that is definitely not fixed either. I believe the term used in patch notes was 'migrating'. in fact, it seems worse, because I only saw ATG teams do it until this PBEM, where I saw a MG 42 squad detach itself. weird to see the MG in a trench with the gunner 40 meters to its left squatting firing an invisible mg.

also to clarify, no - the bridge thing did not affect the accuracy or fire at all. It was just a huge pain in the ass to hop bridge sides manually (no ctrl + click either)

[Erwin]

I often use 120mm and heavier arty to point target enemy armor and usually it's quite effective. Only occasionally have I experienced arty striking way off target. (And my understanding is that WW2 arty was often way off target.) So, there may be something in the way you are using FO's. (?)

[Sublime]

No, its not consistent. It only happens once in awhile. Its a documented bug that was supposedly fixed, and it's not.

Speaking of armor on tanks, Id do it in CMSF. Never really would try in CMx2 BN or CW or FI, because WW2 arty usually isnt that accurate. However my opponent just shelled the hell out of a tiger of mine with 25 lbers and it didnt KO it, but its had an effect. thats for sure.

[Holman]

I notice that sometimes an on-map mortar, when preparing its mission, will show a target line off to the friendly side of the map regardless of the planned target. When the actual rounds start flying, however, the target line goes to the correct location.

The bug described in this threads seems to involve the shooter never correcting the line from the default value (or whatever it is) that draws that first odd line during preparation.

[YankeeDog]

I have seen in-LOS, non-Emergency strikes come in off-target a few times, but I'm not sure that my experiences are indicative of a bug. There are at least two plausible explanations for my experiences:

1) In CMx2, the spotter must be able to see the spotting rounds in order to correct the aim, so if his LOS to the target point is a very narrow "keyhole", and/or the spotting rounds fall very off target, the FFE may end up off. IIRC, there was an adjustment a few patches ago which added a feature where the spotter will call for additional spotting rounds if he misses the first 1 or 2, but I think (not 100% sure about this) the mission still goes to FFE eventually regardless after 3-4 spotting rounds, and if the spotter still fails to see any of the additional spotting rounds, you're SOL.

2) At least on Elite and Iron play levels, radios occasionally fail for short periods of time. You can see this happen in the UI -- the unit will lose the radio C2 link to higher levels. I'm pretty sure I have seen this screw with fire support calls and result in OT strikes. One time in particular, I had an HQ calling in an 81mm. He had good LOS to both the target point and the spotting round impacts, but the spotting rounds continued to 4 rather than the usual 2, and when the strike did eventually come in, it was off target. I went back and reviewed the turns, and discovered that the HQ's radio dropped out for a couple of turns while the spotting rounds were coming in. Not 100% certain, but I think this may be why the strike was off target.

No idea whether either of the above apply to the OP's observations, and I'm pretty neither of these apply to strikes on TRPs my theories wouldn't explain off-target strikes directed at TRPs. But they may explain at least some off-target strikes that people are seeing.

[Baneman]

This comes back to my perpetual moan that there simply isn't enough feedback in the Artillery UI for the player to know what's going on.

a) You don't know how long the spotting is going to take.

You definitely don't know if the spotter can see the spotting rounds which is why (a).

c) You don't know if it's on target or not until the actual barrage is falling.

If only there was some means to know how many observed spotting rounds are required to "dial in the strike" and to know how many have been spotted.

I don't really know why © exists though, surely if the strike isn't on target, it's a function of more spotting rounds required, not a "to hell with it, just fire the damn barrage !"

[Holman]

As long as the end result is artillery behavior that more or less mimics WW2 artillery FO's at work, I'm happy.

How close are we to this now?

[Sublime]

eh Im almost certain its a bug. It was documented in a patch before. Also, I can specifically think of at least two incidents involving TRPs with an FO not under fire nor even visible by the enemy, nor moving at all.

[Michael Emrys]

At least on Elite and Iron play levels, radios occasionally fail for short periods of time.

It also happens in easier levels of play. I play in Veteran mode and have spotted this behavior a few times. I expect it to happen if the radio in question is in the middle of a move or immediately after a move has happened, but oddly enough, a few times I've seen it maintain contact all through a move. But there have also been times when no movement was involved and it went out anyway. I don't think I ever witnessed it going out for more than a turn and usually it was just part of a turn. I don't object to this as rationales for the behavior are plentiful (atmospherics, weak batteries, the other end busy with something else, etc.).

Michael

[YankeeDog]

This comes back to my perpetual moan that there simply isn't enough feedback in the Artillery UI for the player to know what's going on.

a) You don't know how long the spotting is going to take.

You definitely don't know if the spotter can see the spotting rounds which is why (a).

c) You don't know if it's on target or not until the actual barrage is falling.

If only there was some means to know how many observed spotting rounds are required to "dial in the strike" and to know how many have been spotted.

I don't really know why © exists though, surely if the strike isn't on target, it's a function of more spotting rounds required, not a "to hell with it, just fire the damn barrage !"

Eehhh.... depends on where your preferences are on the "gameplay vs. realism" spectrum. WWII Artillery targeting was not an exact science, and strikes sometimes fell off target, even when the people plotting them were pretty darn certain they were going to fall where they intended them to. Heck, this still happens occasionally today, with the assistance of GPS and all sorts of other technological whizbangs not available in the 1940s.

So it's not unrealistic for indirect fire strikes to go wrong every once in a while, despite the players' best efforts and all indications to the contrary. And it is certainly not unrealistic for the player to not be 100% certain an artillery strike is going to come in on target, until the steel rain actually starts falling.

However, from a gameplay perspective, you can debate whether this is a desirable "feature" or not. Most people don't like to lose games due to simple random chance. And while it is more towards the simulation end of the spectrum than most games, CMx2 is still not really a combat command simulator. The player has far too immediate control over every unit on the map to truly call the game a "simulator". This may well be an area where compromises have to be made between realism and enjoyable gameplay.

Regardless, it does sound like what Sublime is seeing be a bug, as I have never seen a strike directed at a TRP come in off target. Save games would be handy in determining for sure.

[womble]

a) You don't know how long the spotting is going to take.

This is always going to be the case, since it will vary according to how well placed the spotting rounds are, with their random initial error. For a given spotter/battery combo, it won't always be the same and will vary according to how well the spotter sees the splashes too.

[Baneman]

This is always going to be the case, since it will vary according to how well placed the spotting rounds are, with their random initial error. For a given spotter/battery combo, it won't always be the same and will vary according to how well the spotter sees the splashes too.

Fair enough, but sometimes, the time required goes to infinity, but due to the lack of feedback to the player, you don't know that this is happening.

[womble]

Fair enough, but sometimes, the time required goes to infinity, but due to the lack of feedback to the player, you don't know that this is happening.

That's more a function of your second point: the spotter doesn't tell the shooter (in your hearing) that they can't see the splash. Solve and a) looks after itself. I only played the CMSF demo, no scenario more than once through, but seem to remember that in that, the arty spotter-battery conversation is played to the player: "Firing" "splash" for each spotting round. That sort of information would be all you'd need. Well, except for when your spotters are calling the fall of several spotting series at once, when you'd have some deduction to do in order to determine which fires and splashes have been reported.

It's just occurred to me that "close captions" would be useful to show which spotter and battery were communicating. Use the FO's name and the battery designation from the force selection screen. "Haartman: Splash" "1st Battery: Fire".

[Sublime]

good idea womble. also i do have saves (since its a pbem) of not only the artillery, but also the mg squad member wandering off and firing the ghost machine gun.

[Pak40]

Sublime, from the 1.01 patch readme:

• Artillery is a little less precise.
  
• When a forward observer cannot see where spotting rounds impact, he will usually require another round to be fired rather than skip ahead to fire-for-effect with poor accuracy.

This leads me to believe that what you're seeing is not a bug and is intentional. WWII artillery was off sometimes and BFC was taking that into consideration when they modeled this system. CMBN artillery at release was off more frequently so they dialed back the inaccuracy to appease the consumers. That doesn't mean that you'll get 100% accuracy 100% of the time.

[Sublime]

Pak, I understand WW2 arty or even modern day would get 100% accuracy 100% of the time. did you even read my previous posts? the issue is for them calling for FFE when the rounds are coming in drastically off target. And again, if you read the posts, you'll note this was being discussed about a TRP target. This should not be happening with a TRP. And Im not saying they.re 10, 20 meters off. I mean like 200 meters off.

[Pak40]

Absolutely I read your post. You said the FO has LOS or TRP. I just chalked the TRP up as a rare freak occurrence since it's never happened to me. I sense your real beef is with the inaccuracy of the artillery FFE in general. Honestly, I've been quite pleased with the accuracy and have often thought it a little too accurate overall. BTW, 10-20 meters off is really considered quite accurate, to me at least. If artillery is going to be off then 200 meters off is more realistic.

[Redwolf]

Interesting that this bug carried over from CMx1.

[womble]

Sublime, from the 1.01 patch readme:

• Artillery is a little less precise.
  
• When a forward observer cannot see where spotting rounds impact, he will usually require another round to be fired rather than skip ahead to fire-for-effect with poor accuracy.

This leads me to believe that what you're seeing is not a bug and is intentional. WWII artillery was off sometimes and BFC was taking that into consideration when they modeled this system. CMBN artillery at release was off more frequently so they dialed back the inaccuracy to appease the consumers. That doesn't mean that you'll get 100% accuracy 100% of the time.

So: you think that an FO calling for another spotting shot when they can't see the splash of a previous one is consistent with the FFE being out of sight of the FO? "A little less precise" does not tranlate to "an order of magnitude less precise". Add the fact that this is a relatively rare occurrence, and that most fire missions land within an effective radius of their target (eventually, barring spotting FUBARs tending the arrival delay to "indefinite"). It looks and smells like a bug to me, and since BFC have intented to fix it, I'm going to cleave to that opinion. If it was an intentional change, they'd've said so and not fixed it.

Interesting that this bug carried over from CMx1.

It didn't. No bugs carried over because no code was reused. They started from the ground up with CMx2.