Bug: Field Guns In Indirect Fire Mode: Shooting Into The Ground

[Steiner14]

I have two 75mm infantry guns in indirect fire role. Their projectiles are hitting the crest of the hill and they keep firing round after round into the ground.

[womble]

I have two 75mm infantry guns in indirect fire role. Their projectiles are hitting the crest of the hill and they keep firing round after round into the ground.

Not a bug, really. I'm guessing your observer has no sight of the impact point and is therefore struggling to make a sensible correction. It's a bit of a FUBAR that the gun crews (who can presumably see the impacts, since they're on the same side of the hill as the gun) don't just unilaterally cease fire after a few of the spotter's corrections fail to lift the aim point enough to clear the intervening terrain, but games have limitations.

For future reference, IGs in CM are bloomin' useless as indirect fire assets in 90% of cases because their arc of fire isn't high enough. They'll clear trees, but generally not hills, and almost certainly not trees on hills. Regardless of whether the spotting routine is a bit bollixed for them, you wouldn't be getting an indirect mission to FFE anyway, just because of the ballistics as the game has 'em.

Some information has been dug out that the Ig18 could have been fired at its high angle, with minimal propellant at ranges down to 500m, but the game doesn't model IGs firing at over 45degrees, so for ranges under max, it's low angle or nothing.

[Sublime]

Yeah. I fiddled around once in a big map trying to call them in. could never get a shot though. Gave up. Now I always specify them as off board or use them D/F as a last ditch option...

[Michael Emrys]

Another somewhat odd situation I observed in a BN game a year or so back. The opposing German side had positioned a lIG under a tree, and every time it fired, the shell hit a tree branch and detonated. This went on for several turns until I either killed the gun or it ran out of ammo, I forget which.

Michael

[cool breeze]

On that cool little map in the heavy rain, cats chasing dogs, I got one to shoot indirect, AND IT NAIL THE VEHICLE I TARGETED!!! BOOM! It was so cool. It was so cool I thought it might have been too good but since it hasn't happened since I think I just got super luck.

[MikeyD]

What's that old Henny Youngman joke? I went to the doctor and said "Doc, it hurts when I raise my arm" and he said "Then don't do it!" If you think indirect fire from 75mm inf guns is difficult try it with Italian 47mm AT guns (which can be directed by remote spotter) Their flat trajector won't allow the round to clear much of anything besides a low stone wall. This is one of those parts of the game where experience really helps. You eventually come to learn what obstruction a particularly gun will clear and what they won't.

[Steiner14]

Not a bug, really. I'm guessing your observer has no sight of the impact point and is therefore struggling to make a sensible correction. It's a bit of a FUBAR that the gun crews (who can presumably see the impacts, since they're on the same side of the hill as the gun) don't just unilaterally cease fire after a few of the spotter's corrections fail to lift the aim point enough to clear the intervening terrain, but games have limitations.

You are funny. The player get's the indication that the trajectory of the weapon is ok or, if something is blocking the gun's trajectory. The player must rely on this information in the setup phase since he can't ask the gun's crew.

But then the real trajectory obviously is somehow too low.

This.is.a.bug.

[Wicky]

Have you tried moving the gun back a few metres?

I have two 75mm infantry guns in indirect fire role. Their projectiles are hitting the crest of the hill and they keep firing round after round into the ground.

[Sublime]

On that cool little map in the heavy rain, cats chasing dogs, I got one to shoot indirect, AND IT NAIL THE VEHICLE I TARGETED!!! BOOM! It was so cool. It was so cool I thought it might have been too good but since it hasn't happened since I think I just got super luck.

In a PBEM turn the other night a 25lber barrage I had ordered, not even specifically targetting a puma scored a direct hit and brewed it up. Suprising for two reasons - 1 it was set to airburst so I got the odd shell whose fuse failed and 2 - It was a linear mission about 300m long strung between two TRP points in my web over an expected route of attack.

Anyways fair to say I reran that video about 5 times listening to that satisfying crack-crunch of the round slamming into the puma and the following explosion. Again I gotta tell anyone who hasnt played against human how much more rewarding it is to kill human controlled units.

[womble]

You are funny. The player get's the indication that the trajectory of the weapon is ok or, if something is blocking the gun's trajectory. The player must rely on this information in the setup phase since he can't ask the gun's crew.

But then the real trajectory obviously is somehow too low.

This.is.a.bug.

No it's not. It's working exactly as designed. A flaw in game design, perhaps, but not a bug. There's no way of knowing in-game whether the intervening hill is going to block the trajectory until the gun starts firing.

You really need to get a better idea of what's a bug and what's not.

[Ranger33]

No it's not. It's working exactly as designed. A flaw in game design, perhaps, but not a bug. There's no way of knowing in-game whether the intervening hill is going to block the trajectory until the gun starts firing.

You really need to get a better idea of what's a bug and what's not.

Even if the game doesn't calculate the shot until the gun fires, the AI should still register that "Hey, we're aiming this gun right at that hill, I don't think this is going to work." I know mortars won't fire if they are right up against a building (and maybe trees?), so there is some sort of system in place for this, just needs to work better.

[akd]

I guess it depends if it is marginal clearance, such that dispersion or spotting round error could carry rounds short into the crest. AFAIK artillery shoots were seldom conducted with marginal crest clearance, so you shouldn't be surprised if the results are less than optimal if you try it in the game. If the target-gun line is entirely ignoring terrain, however, that might be a bug.

Steiner, please post a save if you can.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I played a scenario in CMBN last night where I had 2 75mm guns with a spotter on the hill that was in front of the guns. He had clear LOS to my target and the guns were available to him. The game wouldn't let me call in an arty attack on that location, presumably because the LOF was blocked by the hill.

[Redwolf]

Not a bug, really. I'm guessing your observer has no sight of the impact point and is therefore struggling to make a sensible correction. It's a bit of a FUBAR that the gun crews (who can presumably see the impacts, since they're on the same side of the hill as the gun) don't just unilaterally cease fire after a few of the spotter's corrections fail to lift the aim point enough to clear the intervening terrain, but games have limitations.

That's the worst piece of fanboi garbage I have seen lately.

Of course it's not OK and not realistic that they continue to shoot up the ridge.

A FO will not non-observe falling rounds and let them fire on for 15 minutes thinking "well maybe the shells are slower today and they still come".

What the hell, man?

[John Kettler]

Artillery firing calculations routinely include super elevation in order to clear terrain mask. The German leIg 18 and the sIG 33 were capable of firing at elevations as high as 70 degrees, so should, barring the most extreme engagement geometries (e.g., bottom of narrow, deep canyon with vertical walls), be able to fire over intervening terrain no sweat. Combat accounts I've read speak of using the sIG 33 to pound defiles based on sound detection of Russian troops assembled for attack, then switching over to direct fire as the Russians came into direct view of the gun line. I would dearly love to know why the on-board howitzers are modeled the broken way they are, just as I'd love to know why elevation and depression limits aren't modeled on AFVs. The issue is of ongoing, direct tactical significance and becomes even more important in MOUT. How can a combat sim in which AFVs figure heavily and which analyzes practically every factor except the gunner's breakfast, not model elevation and depression effects? It must be important, since it is discussed to this day in comparing our tanks to OPFOR in a downhill engagement and has been directly written up in U.S. military journals as it relates to MOUT considerations.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

That's the worst piece of fanboi garbage I have seen lately.

Of course it's not OK and not realistic that they continue to shoot up the ridge.

A FO will not non-observe falling rounds and let them fire on for 15 minutes thinking "well maybe the shells are slower today and they still come".

What the hell, man?

Did I say it was right? No I did not. I said it's not a bug. As in the code has been written to execute this way and is working as intended.

How often do "fanbois" admit to design flaws, which is what this is? What people like you need to realise is the difference between a bug, which is an error in the programming that makes the game not perform according to the rules of the game, and an error in the rules that govern the simulation, which makes the game perform not according to the rules of real life. Until then, your mewling about "bugs" is as worthless as your assessment of other peoples' opinions.

[Wicky]

Re. Gun elevation on AFVs - Steve answers that question about once a year

This is one of those problems which is more theoretical than actual. Not to say that it never comes up, but it doesn't come up nearly as frequently as one might think. That's because other factors have a natural dampening effect on the extremes.

The lack of elevation restrictions has been with CM since 1997 and will likely continue long into the future. The reason is that fixing the problem is extremely complicated and very involved from the user's standpoint. Because the problem doesn't come up too often we feel we can "get away" without spending the considerable time it would take to overcome. If it were a common experience we would trash a couple dozen other improvements and focus instead on getting elevation restrictions in. Given the choice between fixing this and putting in lots of other things people want... the choice is clear that we should not do the elevation restrictions.

Steve

It's a massively difficult problem for the AI to handle, not to mention the gameplay ramifications. As is often the case, I see that some people have casually dismissed these issues as either not existing or being worse than the existing behavior. Since I've had detailed discussions with Charles about this since the early days of CMx1 (gun elevation/depression isn't restricted in CMx1 either), I'm going to have to go with Charles on this one. For some reason I suspect he knows more about the difficulty

Personally, I was a bit surprised when Charles said he wasn't going to code elevation/depression restrictions into CMx2. This was back, oh, 2-3 years ago I would guess. I figured with all the better data on hand and less abstraction that it would be easier to deal with than with CMx1. But it makes sense that it isn't since the primary problem is AI logic. Having things be more or less exact doesn't make the AI programming task easier.

When I asked Charles if he ever thought he'd code elevation/depression into CM the answer was "no". You guys who have been hanging around here for 10+ years know there are very, very few things which Charles categorically rules out. There are even fewer that I tell you about

If you guys don't understand what the big deal is about it, that's fine. Just remember that not understanding the problem isn't the same thing as the problem not existing. After all, I don't understand why we can't have cold fusion but apparently it's got something to do with physics

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86637&page=4

[dieseltaylor]

Hmmph!

Is there not a crossing of answers relating to tanks with infinite ability to shoot up and down with a problem of artillery being unable to do so. Leaving the aside whether the application of no rule for tanks but rules for guns is the same argument that the quotations were about I am surprised that the ability of mortars to fire high is not translated to howitzers also. Is this another case where the AI would have a problem so it is not considered?

Still I would give my eye-teeth to know what BF consider flaws worth working on and those which will never ever be addressed. And I don't mean for someone to tell me that if I read all the comments ever posted by BF I would know the answer. I see a simple list saving everyone a lot of grief.

[womble]

...I am surprised that the ability of mortars to fire high is not translated to howitzers also. Is this another case where the AI would have a problem so it is not considered?

My guess here is that the use of lesser propellant charges is not modelled, and BFC have just taken a muzzle velocity value from somewhere, and combined it with the max elevation, to come up with a minimum range (firing above 45degrees) that is too big to fit on "most" maps, so wouldn't be usable, so have decided to sacrifice coding in all the decision making about high angle fire in favour of other aspects.

For the IG18, for example, someone put the muzzle velocity off Wikipedia into a ballistics calculator and came up with an Rmin of 1500m. Others have dug a bit deeper and found that with the smallest propellant charge the Rmin comes down to 500m. Apparently. So that system kinda gets short changed on its abilities in game by what I'm presuming to be a design priority decision.

Still I would give my eye-teeth to know what BF consider flaws worth working on and those which will never ever be addressed.

You amn't alone there, old chap.

And I don't mean for someone to tell me that if I read all the comments ever posted by BF I would know the answer.

As well as being terrible unhelpful, such a statement would be a lie, since BFC don't often confirm or deny whether something is on a burner, back or front, and there are so many issues that they may or may not be looking at...

I see a simple list saving everyone a lot of grief.

Except perhaps BFC, when something on a list doesn't get included in a given release...

[sburke]

ah the anti fanboi brigade is out in force. Once again pointing out that our pixeltruppen who are somehow now self aware should "know" better about what they are doing. Good lord guys it is a game. Some things are included because they HAVE to be for play versus the AI. No matter what you think, your pixeltruppen are not really thinking. Yes it feels good to pretend they are, but they are not. It is a set of routines preprogrammed to achieve certain capabilities and does have it's limitations- deal with it. It is not a bug - they really aren't thinking, they are doing what you told them to do, unfortunately what you told them to do is something that doesn't work and they are not thinking about the fact that it isn't working, they are simply follwing your flawed orders.

Tanks fire on the move as requiring the AI to stop and fire would just make the AI far less competitive - period. BF has explained this too many times to bear having to waste their time in another thread. Maybe someday they will figure out some way to change that, but that day is not today.

Artillery that isn't really meant to be in an indirect fire mode on the map because most CM maps are now too small simply shouldn't be used in indirect mode.

Having the game HAVE to deal with everything you might do wrong would be a big waste of resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Yeah it sucks that what you told them to do doesn't work, but rather than ask that they spend time fixing it so that they won't do it, just stop doing it and let them work on something else - like fire.

I thought you guys had stopped playing as the game was so broken as to be unplayable.

fanboi out.

[Battlefront.com]

I can confirm that the problem is there is no AI for determining when an IG should use a lessor charge. This means the IG is always presumed to be using maximum charge, which means for shorter range "lobs" (high arc) you're going to be out of luck. It's not been shown to be a significant problem and so we've not devoted the time to it.

Mortars, on the other hand, do have AI for charge strength. Since it isn't a flat trajectory weapon it was not that difficult to do. That and mortars are present pretty much all the time as opposed to IGs.

I can't say if or when we'll get around to addressing this issue. It's not a priority for us.

Steve

[Steiner14]

I can't say if or when we'll get around to addressing this issue. It's not a priority for us.

Are you talking about the buggy shooting into the ground? :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

No, I am talking about the lack of AI to account for the charges. As for the guns firing repeatedly at the crest of the hill, that's also an AI problem and not a "bug". The AI is making adjustments to try and hit where you have instructed it to, but because it doesn't understand it needs to change the charge amount, it keeps plowing the rounds into the same spot hoping for a better result next round. Under normal circumstances this is exactly what happens, but not in this one.

If the AI were "smart" enough to understand that subsequent shots were almost certainly going to hit intervening terrain, it would have to cancel the fire mission. Which people would then report as a "bug". So really the only way to fix this is to make new AI to determine when flat trajectory indirect fire weapons, which have flexible charges (i.e. not a single cased round), should use what number of charges for what type of shot. Not impossible to do, just not a priority.

To be clear, this problem only affects indirect fire from an on-map flat trajectory weapon trying to fire a round at a target which is either at a significantly higher/lower elevation or with a high ridge between shooter and target that is at a range that doesn't produce a clear path for the shot to follow. This is not a common CM battlefield situation.

Steve

[womble]

Are you talking about the buggy shooting into the ground? :eek:

Oh god, you're so clever. Really. Incredibly witty. Yeah.

[Steiner14]

To be clear, this problem only affects indirect fire from an on-map flat trajectory weapon trying to fire a round at a target which is either at a significantly higher/lower elevation or with a high ridge between shooter and target that is at a range that doesn't produce a clear path for the shot to follow. This is not a common CM battlefield situation.

So the game offers indirect fire for on map guns, it gives the player a wrong information during the setup phase about a clear LOF, but since this is not a "common CM battlefield situation" this is not worth being corrected? :eek: