Anyone else having mortar/arty spotting/targeting problem?

[Der Zeitgeist]

Ok, the results are in. Unfortunately, the screenshots are quite ugly as Print Screen doesn't seem to work. The resulting image in the clipboard doesn't show the fully rendered terrain.

 

However, I uploaded the save games from my tests in a ZIP-File to my Google Drive, you can find it at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxTk9byWTG-hUnBodkZvRDcydmc&authuser=0

(Beware, it's 61 MB)

 

So, the results in detail. All tests were done with the same spotter, the Fire Support Team sitting on the roof of OP1. The Team was in normal posture, not in hiding, there was no UAV up, and all spotting was done with direct line of sight. Linear missions had complete line of sight along the length of the fire mission. All fire missions were IMMEDIATE, HEAVY, MEDIUM, GENERAL. Crater survey photos were done with a crappy camera phone in poor lighting conditions. 

 

1st test, 120mm on-map mortar, linear mission along the road.

 

 

2nd test, 155mm Paladin, linear mission along the road.

 

 

3rd test, 120mm on-map mortar, short linear mission between the two outer buildings.

 

 

4th test, 120mm on-map mortar, point target, center of building.

 

 

5th test, 120mm on-map mortar, vehicle point target (strike vehicle).

 

 

6th test, 155mm Paladin, vehicle point target (strike vehicle)

 

 

 

The way I see it, the 120mm mortars are much less accurate than they were in CMSF. No way to tell if this is intended, the Developers would have to comment on that. With the 120mm mortars, "point" missions with nonprecision munitions are currently more like a small or even medium sized area mission, linear missions seem broadly oval shaped. In my tests, only 2 rounds in the 120mm point-building test hit the actual building, everything else impacted around. Not a single round scored a direct hit on the T-72 in the vehicle test.

 

The 155mm however is at least as accurate as in CMSF, if not more so. Linear missions are mostly straight along the targeting line, point missions are highly accurate against vehicles. The first shell on the T-72 was a direct hit, with several following direct hits. Accuracy seemed to drop off a little when the target became obscured by smoke.

[Martin Krejcirik]

If drones have limited visibility for arty support, that would explain my experience. It basically behaves like if the spotter lost LOS, but not every time.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Martin Krejcirik

[akd]

Ok, the results are in. Unfortunately, the screenshots are quite ugly as Print Screen doesn't seem to work. The resulting image in the clipboard doesn't show the fully rendered terrain.

 

However, I uploaded the save games from my tests in a ZIP-File to my Google Drive, you can find it at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxTk9byWTG-hUnBodkZvRDcydmc&authuser=0

(Beware, it's 61 MB)

 

So, the results in detail. All tests were done with the same spotter, the Fire Support Team sitting on the roof of OP1. The Team was in normal posture, not in hiding, there was no UAV up, and all spotting was done with direct line of sight. Linear missions had complete line of sight along the length of the fire mission. All fire missions were IMMEDIATE, HEAVY, MEDIUM, GENERAL. Crater survey photos were done with a crappy camera phone in poor lighting conditions. 

The way I see it, the 120mm mortars are much less accurate than they were in CMSF. No way to tell if this is intended, the Developers would have to comment on that. With the 120mm mortars, "point" missions with nonprecision munitions are currently more like a small or even medium sized area mission, linear missions seem broadly oval shaped. In my tests, only 2 rounds in the 120mm point-building test hit the actual building, everything else impacted around. Not a single round scored a direct hit on the T-72 in the vehicle test.

 

The 155mm however is at least as accurate as in CMSF, if not more so. Linear missions are mostly straight along the targeting line, point missions are highly accurate against vehicles. The first shell on the T-72 was a direct hit, with several following direct hits. Accuracy seemed to drop off a little when the target became obscured by smoke.

 

 

On-map indirect units have realistic probability of error applied.  This means that they produce oval impact zones (probability of error for range is generally greater than deflection) rather than circular impact zones, and that errors increase as range increases.  It is more realistic than off-map, which uses fixed circular error.

Edited February 3, 2015 by akd

[John Kettler]

borg,

 

For the Mac Command + Shift + 4 gives the ability to make an image from just a piece of the screen, rather than snapping all of it.

 

akd,

 

From my understanding of US procedures, they don't shoot a circular pattern, but a Lazy "W" (not Russian style straight, guns close together gun line) sheaf.  Here is a discussion of artillery sheaves, taken from FM 23-91 Mortar Gunnery,  pp.4-1 and 4-2. From what I know of such things, I believe a circular pattern for OBA isn't generally supportable (is special) and should be corrected to its true typical configuration. I'm not sure, in the CMBS time period, whether the Ukrainian Army will be using the Russian gun line a la WW II, the US Lazy "W" or something else altogether.

Regards,

 

John Kettler