No Radio , Calling in Artillery

[weapon2010]

I have a Rusian Platoon Hq that has no radio symbol that I can see anywhere but is able to call in artillery.

[Fizou]

Its been like this for a long time and I dont think it will change. No radio needed to call in off map arty. You would need a radio however to keep in contact with on map assets that are far away.

[DMS]

Wire communications? )

[weapon2010]

Fizou

I don't understand what you mean, "its been this way for a long time".All hqs in CMBN and CMFI have radios, the Russian pltn hqs don't, how are they calling in arty?

[Bulletpoint]

It's no excuse that it's been like that for a long time.. for a game that does such a great job at realism, it's a bit silly that you can call in artillery just by yelling really loud at the sky

[weapon2010]

But it hasn't been like that for a long time, its only in Red Thunder with Russian Pltn hqs, please give me another example.

[Bulletpoint]

But it hasn't been like that for a long time, its only in Red Thunder with Russian Pltn hqs, please give me another example.

I started a thread about it some time ago: http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110231

[Apocal]

Fizou

I don't understand what you mean, "its been this way for a long time".All hqs in CMBN and CMFI have radios, the Russian pltn hqs don't, how are they calling in arty?

American XOs without radios or FO teams that lose their radios can still call in artillery.

[Fizou]

But it hasn't been like that for a long time, its only in Red Thunder with Russian Pltn hqs, please give me another example.

As Apocal states its been like this for a long time. Nothing new.

It's no excuse that it's been like that for a long time.. for a game that does such a great job at realism, it's a bit silly that you can call in artillery just by yelling really loud at the sky

No excuse made. Steve has called it a bug that Charles is looking into. They havent sorted it yet though.

[womble]

Fizou

I don't understand what you mean, "its been this way for a long time".All hqs in CMBN and CMFI have radios...

This is patently not true. Many german platoon HQs have no radio. Almost no Italian HQs have radios.

...how are they calling in arty?

Abstracted wire comms.

[c3k]

Carrier pigeons. The release is very quick. It takes a lot of pausing and rewinding to catch it, but the key is to focus on the HQ riflemen, NOT the CO. He only dictates the message. The bloke who keeps putting breadcrumbs into his suspiciously cooing pocket is the one who will release the pigeon. Depending on skill level, you may not see it. Test with conscripts first.

[weapon2010]

so is it "simulated wire communications" or a bug?

[ZPB II]

I have a vague memory imprint of Steve stating that it's abstracted means of communication. Carrier pigeons, runners, wire, signal smoke, astral projection and such.

Radios make the process much faster and efficient.

[Battlefront.com]

It is, indeed, an abstracted method of communications. Wire telephones, for example, were often present even for HQs with radios. There are also runners/messengers to consider. So not a bug per se, though arguably it is an abstraction that has some significant flaws to it in some situations.

What I really want to do, and have wanted since 2005, is to explicitly simulate wire communications. I tried to get it in for CMBN but we simply didn't have the time then and still haven't made the time for it since. The idea is pretty simple... create a "communications" bunker or tent. A unit inside, or nearby, has access to lines of communication if it has no radio. The unit communicating would dictate the chain of command of the wire network. If the tent/bunker is abandoned or destroyed, so too are the communications capabilities it had.

With this feature in place units would not be able to communicate artillery calls without this, a radio, or one of the existing forms of direct communication.

This is not a perfect concept since in real life wires between could be broken through all kinds of different actions. Also in real life a specific phone had a specific connection (in rare cases more than one) that was independent of the unit using it. Signal units could also lay wire hastily, and rather quickly, under combat conditions given several very important conditions. There'd be none of that in my proposal as it is way too complicated.

I have no idea when something like this will work its way into the game, but I am forever hopeful it will

Steve

[PhilM]

It is, indeed, an abstracted method of communications. Wire telephones, for example, were often present even for HQs with radios. There are also runners/messengers to consider. So not a bug per se, though arguably it is an abstraction that has some significant flaws to it in some situations.

What I really want to do, and have wanted since 2005, is to explicitly simulate wire communications. I tried to get it in for CMBN but we simply didn't have the time then and still haven't made the time for it since. The idea is pretty simple... create a "communications" bunker or tent. A unit inside, or nearby, has access to lines of communication if it has no radio. The unit communicating would dictate the chain of command of the wire network. If the tent/bunker is abandoned or destroyed, so too are the communications capabilities it had.

With this feature in place units would not be able to communicate artillery calls without this, a radio, or one of the existing forms of direct communication.

This is not a perfect concept since in real life wires between could be broken through all kinds of different actions. Also in real life a specific phone had a specific connection (in rare cases more than one) that was independent of the unit using it. Signal units could also lay wire hastily, and rather quickly, under combat conditions given several very important conditions. There'd be none of that in my proposal as it is way too complicated.

I have no idea when something like this will work its way into the game, but I am forever hopeful it will

Steve

The wire simulation sounds good - I'm a sucker for each and every bit of verisimilitude ...

But, can I ask if ALL arty calls are at present subject to the abstracted regime? And, in particular, that you currently get no (?) benefit of direct, on map communication with on map assets?

I ask because a recurring irritant to me is that, having (say) placed an HQ spotter in the first floor of a house and a mortar in voice comms with it in the garden behind the house for cover, firing over the house, it still seems to take ~5 minutes for the (set up) mortar to respond to a fire call ... even though it is their CO bellowing directly at them. Guys are dying waiting for a mortar mission that seems like it should get off a first, spotting, shot in rather less than the 5 minutes it seems to take them?

If my inference that there seems to be no current benefit from such direct comms is correct (?), then I'd like to have some timing distinction made in future, based on the comms method, and rewarding good local comms being maintained.

[Vet 0369]

Fizou

I don't understand what you mean, "its been this way for a long time".All hqs in CMBN and CMFI have radios, the Russian pltn hqs don't, how are they calling in arty?

I'm currently playing an H2H in CMBN, and had an HQ crew who bailed from their flaming Sherman Firefly. The leader was able to call in a mission even though no radio was showing in the interface. Maybe an HQ unit leader has an "inherent" radio even though it doesn't show.

[womble]

If my inference that there seems to be no current benefit from such direct comms is correct (?)...

It is. The delay is not reduced at all from the same unit perfoming the same call for fire over radio.

...then I'd like to have some timing distinction made in future, based on the comms method, and rewarding good local comms being maintained.

You're not the first to ask for this. It seems sensible to me. Some have asked for the situation you describe to be as responsive as a mortar in direct lay, which would be taking it too far, I feel, since the voice/sight "call for fire" still has parallax differences to account for and communication difficulty to build in, which a direct drop of the sight on the target doesn't.

[c3k]

It is, indeed, an abstracted method of communications. Wire telephones, for example, were often present even for HQs with radios. There are also runners/messengers to consider. So not a bug per se, though arguably it is an abstraction that has some significant flaws to it in some situations.

What I really want to do, and have wanted since 2005, is to explicitly simulate wire communications. I tried to get it in for CMBN but we simply didn't have the time then and still haven't made the time for it since. The idea is pretty simple... create a "communications" bunker or tent. A unit inside, or nearby, has access to lines of communication if it has no radio. The unit communicating would dictate the chain of command of the wire network. If the tent/bunker is abandoned or destroyed, so too are the communications capabilities it had.

With this feature in place units would not be able to communicate artillery calls without this, a radio, or one of the existing forms of direct communication.

This is not a perfect concept since in real life wires between could be broken through all kinds of different actions. Also in real life a specific phone had a specific connection (in rare cases more than one) that was independent of the unit using it. Signal units could also lay wire hastily, and rather quickly, under combat conditions given several very important conditions. There'd be none of that in my proposal as it is way too complicated.

I have no idea when something like this will work its way into the game, but I am forever hopeful it will

Steve

Commo wire. Modeled.

Soviet 4mm wire weighed 1 ton per km. I want guys with wire spools running about. I want copper colored comm-lines. Just like the red command lines, but copper! Not sienna. Copper. They'd follow them around and link one unit to another.

And then they'd jam tank tracks. And conscripts would cut lengths to help hold their bedrolls together. And artillery would break them. And repair teams would fix them. Lightning would shock the men. Enemy could sneak next to them and listen in.

[weapon2010]

so what is the difference then between an hq that has a physical radio and one that doesn't?

[Lt Belenko]

Commo wire. Modeled.

Soviet 4mm wire weighed 1 ton per km. I want guys with wire spools running about. I want copper colored comm-lines. Just like the red command lines, but copper! Not sienna. Copper. They'd follow them around and link one unit to another.

And then they'd jam tank tracks. And conscripts would cut lengths to help hold their bedrolls together. And artillery would break them. And repair teams would fix them. Lightning would shock the men. Enemy could sneak next to them and listen in.

Realism z the BFC way!!

[womble]

so what is the difference then between an hq that has a physical radio and one that doesn't?

An HQ with a radio can maintian C2 links with other HQs in the CoC which also have radios. If the only radio your Bttn possesses is the one the Bttn HQ has (like Italian infantry Battalions) then your company commanders will generally not be in C2 with their superiors. Even platoon commanders struggle to stay in C2 without radios. A radio also needs to be available at the battery end of a call for on-map support, if there's no direct vision/sound link between the spotter and the support asset... Wire telephones go back to behind the lines, and the spotting conversation is relayed forward again via radio. Presumably...

[Michael Emrys]

I want copper colored comm-lines. Just like the red command lines, but copper! Not sienna. Copper.

Actually they should be black. That was the color of the insulating sheath.

Michael

[Champagne]

This is patently not true. Many german platoon HQs have no radio. Almost no Italian HQs have radios.

Abstracted wire comms.

Field telephones were all over the WW2 battlefields, so, this must be the answer.

[c3k]

Actually they should be black. That was the color of the insulating sheath.

Michael

Bah. Insulating sheaths are capitalist luxury. Working Soviet man plunges into his work with no sheath. Da.

[Baneman]

Bah. Insulating sheaths are capitalist luxury. Working Soviet man plunges into his work with no sheath. Da.

...is why there are so many Russians ...