Counter Battery Fire

[LUCASWILLEN05]

it would be really nice if BF were able to work out a solution to allow CB fire against off map targets. Perhaps a simple map grid off table to allow for artillery positioning etc Each grid square could represent an area of, let's say 1 mile/kilometer into which off table assets could be positioned and maneuvered during the game. If suitable assets are available off map artillery could be hit within the game tself

[Badger73]

it would be really nice if BF were able to work out a solution to allow CB fire against off map targets. Perhaps a simple map grid off table to allow for artillery positioning etc Each grid square could represent an area of, let's say 1 mile/kilometer into which off table assets could be positioned and maneuvered during the game. If suitable assets are available off map artillery could be hit within the game tself

Please allow me to disagree.  WW2 Counter-Battery fires were managed at the level of Divison/Corps/Army.  It was typically beyond the scope of combat operations for Platoon leaders, Company commanders, and Battalion artillery assets.  For game play, it's outside of what I want to concern myself with while exhorting my pixeltruppen to victorious outcomes!  I opine that CB is more appropriate to Operational level games instead.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Badger73

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Please allow me to disagree.  WW2 Counter-Battery fires were managed at the level of Divison/Corps/Army.  It was typically beyond the scope of combat operations for Platoon leaders, Company commanders, and Battalion artillery assets.  For game play, it's outside of what I want to concern myself with while exhorting my pixeltruppen to victorious outcomes!  I opine that CB is more appropriate to Operational level games instead.

I was thinking more of modern although CB was possible in  WW2.

[RockinHarry]

I agree with Badger73 in this case, although games like Steel Panthers WAW, also beeing a tactical level wargame at Bn/'Rgt level had a sort of CB system implemented. Basically it worked with a players unused hvy Arty offboard assets (150mm+) to be employed in some random ways vs enemy offboard Arty batteries. Worked sufficiently well in that game with effects ranging from single enemy guns destroyed to the battery just beeing suppressed and thus unavailable to opposing player for limited amount of time. Or no effect at all.

[Pete Wenman]

On a couple of occasions I've thought of doing the following , but have always chickened out as I imagine the howls of anguish from the player on the receiving end.

1. Create a scenario where counterbattery fire might be realistic

2. Advise the player that he will be receiving an arty asset as a reinforcement at say 30 minutes into the game.

3. Include within the briefing that effective enemy counterbattery fire has been problem over recent days.

4. Create a reinforcement group at say 15 minutes into the game, which flags the message that the promised artillery reinforcement has been subject to CB fire and has had to relocate and so will be delayed and less assets than anticipated will be available

5. Determine whether to have any actual arty reinforcement appear within the remaining game time.

This will probably work best for a scenario vs the AI.

P

 

[Michael Emrys]

I agree with Badger73, it probably just isn't worth the extra programming effort. If you feel that this is something you just gotta have, I think the best way to handle it would be a probability as to whether an off-board artillery asset was delayed or simply did not appear at all.

Michael

Edited January 13, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[Badger73]

On a couple of occasions I've thought of doing the following , but have always chickened out as I imagine the howls of anguish from the player on the receiving end.

1. Create a scenario where counterbattery fire might be realistic

2. Advise the player that he will be receiving an arty asset as a reinforcement at say 30 minutes into the game.

3. Include within the briefing that effective enemy counterbattery fire has been problem over recent days.

4. Create a reinforcement group at say 15 minutes into the game, which flags the message that the promised artillery reinforcement has been subject to CB fire and has had to relocate and so will be delayed and less assets than anticipated will be available

5. Determine whether to have any actual arty reinforcement appear within the remaining game time.

This will probably work best for a scenario vs the AI.

P

 

<snipped>

I think the best way to handle it would be a probability as to whether an off-board artillery asset was delayed or simply did not appear at all.

Michael

Both of these make better sense for Counter Battery purposes to me.  Each portrays the platoon/company/battalion combat experience.  I especially like Pete's approach.

[IICptMillerII]

I don't want counter battery simulated in Combat Mission for the same reason that @ChrisND doesn't want it in the game. It is essentially overly frustrating and unfair to lose control over an asset randomly and that you have no control over. He explains it better than I can in this video: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisnd/v/25980864 Skip to 51 minutes where he begins to describe why counter battery simulation is not a good idea. 

Additionally as others have pointed out, counter battery does not fit into the scope of Combat Mission. CM is a tactical level simulator. At the tactical level you either have an asset or you don't. Asking for counter battery to be simulated is like having all the ingredients to bake a cake, but at any time during the baking of the cake you could randomly lose an ingredient, and the reason for the loss would be due to something like, "well, its possible you weren't able to go to the store to get flour today, so the flour is gone." If that was the case, you wouldn't be baking a cake. The point is, going into a battle you either have 2 batteries of artillery or you have 3. Why you have 2 or 3 can be explained in the briefing ("we had 3 but lost one to counter battery so now we only have 2") but should not be a variable once the battle starts. 

Edited January 13, 2016 by IICptMillerII

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Much like the electronic warfare settings in CMBS I do wish there was a setting to allow for counter-battery and counter-air operations.  What I do not like now is that you either have totally unmolested support assets, or they do not exist at all.  Having some player or scenario designer designated chance for support asset failure/delay would allow for realistic situations in which forlorn hope CAS wings its way through heavy CAPs, or you're hoarding your artillery because its first mission could be the only mission it fires.

I suggested something similar for CAS in CMBS simply because it's hard to model air defense for forces that rely heavily on very capable fighters over ground mounted defenses, and the outcome of an inferior air force bombing a military with a vastly superior air element just smelled off, while excluding the inferior air force entirely seemed like an imperfect solution.  On the other hand with both forces operating fighter bombers practically on top of each other it seems equally odd they grant each other the professional courtesy to bomb in peace.  

The same logic could most certainly apply to counter-battery fires.  Having something along the lines of the following for CAS or artillery could be interesting:

Asset parity: Both parties have a moderate chance of asset delay with a small chance of asset destruction (both sides have CAP and CAS in the air, or are able to effectively counter-battery each other's fires.  Simulates inconclusively contested airspace and artillery operations)

Asset superiority: One of the parties has a marked advantage.  The advantage having side has a small chance of asset delay with a minute chance of asset destruction, while the inferior side has a high chance of asset delay and a notable chance of asset loss.  This simulates the average US-German artillery imbalance, German artillery missions were totally possible, but they did have an increased risk relative to their opponents.

Asset Dominance: One side has a massive advantage.  The advantage side has a small chance of asset delay, and virtually no chance of destruction.  The disadvantage side has a virtual certainty of delay and a moderate chance of destruction.  This well simulates German CAS on most days over Western Europe circa 1944-1945, there's a remote chance it shows up, but odds are not at all good.

Possible caveat:

 Different assets have different "weights" by the previous criteria.  A JU-87 asset in US air dominance just isn't going to show up.   AR 234 is much less likely to be affected.  Same deal with artillery, big corps level guns are likely well outside the common danger area for counter-battery, while smaller guns closer to the front are much more at risk.
 

[Cobetco]

i duno, i dont think counterbattery fire has any real place in combat mission, in the same way that advanced supply stuff doesn't really fit in (imagine the flow charts of rations you'd have to manage)

HOWEVER! i do think the greater idea of artillery duels and operation of a artillery battery would make a great dungeonkeeper-esque game. maybe you would have Fire missions that would reward you with resources at the cost of being detected. imagine setting up Counter battery Radar in a remote spots, and the decision of breaking up your guns into sections to mitigate counter fire, or grouping them together to have protection from enemy scouting and special forces elements. 

[Macisle]

I'm afraid I'm in the "no" camp on CB fire for the various good reasons others have stated.

However, I think it's fine to give a player his arty as a reinforcement in SP scenarios. That can give the AI a much needed bone and dial up the difficulty for the human player, which, vs. the AI, might well make the scenario more interesting (at the cost of a little initial grumbling).

In H2H, I would tend to give both players something to start with for preplanned bombardment--or at least the attacker. Then give them additional reinforcement arty later, if the scenario seemed to call for it.

Going back to the original point, I would not use the reinforcement message to cut an arty asset that the player had been led to expect. The cons of player frustration outweigh any small pros in "realism" (which could be debated based on scope and focus of CM anyway).

 

[gnarly]

I was thinking more of modern although CB was possible in  WW2.

If in Black Sea, I'd suggest as a counter-proposal for a more  viable (and tangible in terms of theatre/mission size) yet still abstract off-board mechanic; air-to-air (call it Counter-Air!).

1/. Introduce a new type of target for appropriate air assets called anti-air or similar. Asset would loiter over the battlefield (no 'target' required? Or use a very large radius if the map is Huge (e.g. 1km radius?)) and attempt to interdict any enemy air missions occurring during their mission time. Mission time of say 10 minutes?

2/. A successful interdiction at least will cause enemy air asset to break-off attack, or at worst be destroyed (i.e. enemy loses that asset for the rest of the game!).

3/. Might need some in-game logic for air-to-air attacker/defender weighting values.  For instance, an heli on interdiction duties is unlikely to shoot down a fighter-bomber (or even cause a break-off?). Whereas an heli interdicting another chopper is very likely to cause it to at least break-off, if not actually destroy the enemy chopper.

4/. If you really wanted to get complex, you could 'layer' your attacks; have a fighter bomber on interdiction duties (air-to-air) at teh same time as one or more heli ground attack missions are going in. This way, if the enemy has an asset on air-to-air duties, it is nullified, prioritized towards the the opponents air-air fighter-bomber, allowing the heli's to have a better chance to conduct their ground attacks.

5/. If both parties happen to have only ground-attack missions occurring simultaneously, there is a reduced chances of interdiction on both sides (conceivably, both missions could be aborted)

 

I am not advocating this is done at all, but just suggesting something that IMO makes more sense for implementing against already abstracted off-board assets than coutner-battery fire, in terms of CM scale & mission time frame. It is also something that the player would feel that they have a lot more control over (tangibly)  within their toolbox of assets, and adds some interesting combos and decisions (see item 4 above).

 

LOL I just read @panzersaurkrautwerfer post. Similar ideas about CAS and CAP.

Edited January 14, 2016 by gnarly

[LUCASWILLEN05]

If in Black Sea, I'd suggest as a counter-proposal for a more  viable (and tangible in terms of theatre/mission size) yet still abstract off-board mechanic; air-to-air (call it Counter-Air!).

1/. Introduce a new type of target for appropriate air assets called anti-air or similar. Asset would loiter over the battlefield (no 'target' required? Or use a very large radius if the map is Huge (e.g. 1km radius?)) and attempt to interdict any enemy air missions occurring during their mission time. Mission time of say 10 minutes?

2/. A successful interdiction at least will cause enemy air asset to break-off attack, or at worst be destroyed (i.e. enemy loses that asset for the rest of the game!).

3/. Might need some in-game logic for air-to-air attacker/defender weighting values.  For instance, an heli on interdiction duties is unlikely to shoot down a fighter-bomber (or even cause a break-off?). Whereas an heli interdicting another chopper is very likely to cause it to at least break-off, if not actually destroy the enemy chopper.

4/. If you really wanted to get complex, you could 'layer' your attacks; have a fighter bomber on interdiction duties (air-to-air) at teh same time as one or more heli ground attack missions are going in. This way, if the enemy has an asset on air-to-air duties, it is nullified, prioritized towards the the opponents air-air fighter-bomber, allowing the heli's to have a better chance to conduct their ground attacks.

5/. If both parties happen to have only ground-attack missions occurring simultaneously, there is a reduced chances of interdiction on both sides (conceivably, both missions could be aborted)

 

I am not advocating this is done at all, but just suggesting something that IMO makes more sense for implementing against already abstracted off-board assets than coutner-battery fire, in terms of CM scale & mission time frame. It is also something that the player would feel that they have a lot more control over (tangibly)  within their toolbox of assets, and adds some interesting combos and decisions (see item 4 above).

 

LOL I just read @panzersaurkrautwerfer post. Similar ideas about CAS and CAP.

Yes, counter air would also be a good feature. Regarding off map artillery assets we have no way of countering these. T some extent we can counter air strikes to some degree in BS (we could not do that in CMSF) If you look at the reality of large scale modern conventional warfare (eg Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom - and to some extent in the Donbass War and the 20008 Georgia War) these  counter battery missions are undertaken. Even though our battle might only include company  to battalion size forces this may very well be part of a far larger action which makes counter battery and counter air far more significant.

Having said that it will be up the the scenario designer to decide whether the assets to do this are available or not. Just as the scenario designer in BS decides whether electronic warfare is available. As with the electronic warfare function a scenario designer could turn these options on in the scenario editor data section if he wants one or both sides to have them in this particular battle. This choice would turn on a simple large area map which would show basc features such as roads. hills, BUAs and rivers on which artillery units could be moved.

In fact. on he same map you could place and manouvre reinforcements with certain restrictions allowing you, the commander or he AI to bring reinforcements into the battle in the most useful place.

That at least is my vision for the vollution of the game.

[TrailApe]

I think it's a reasonable idea.

Yes you may be allocated a battery in direct support, but just because it's been allocated to you does not mean you will get it.

One of the main strengths of the artillery support of the Western Allies was it's ability to switch targets quite quickly - that's great if a large armoured enemy force beams down from nowhere and rolls out of the misty forests heading for a vital bridge - get on the phone, keep calm and call for artillery, however the other side of the coin is that you were given your arty assets and a problem in the next brigade area (panzers steaming out of the mists) merits the withdrawal of these assets at the last minute

The reinforcement options allow for non show of assets, so it's not a total departure from game play to be denied promised reinforcements.,

I used to like the SPWW2 idea of conducting counter battery fire of unused off-board artillery, however as Badger73 pointed out, CB was the province of the Big Lads - or as one Major in the RA called them 'BFOG's' (Big F**k Off Guns), Field Artillery did not indulge in such cannibalistic activities, so you would have to spend money on quite expensive heavy artillery - and not use it - to get the benefit of CB.

One for the Arty Grogs methinks.

 

[MikeyD]

AI-controlled counterbattery fire sounds like it could be classed with battleship artillery and massed artillery rockets. Stuff that you'd like to see in the game in theory but which tend to spoil attempts to play a scenario. Either BOOM! - everyone on the map is dead or NO BOOM - your expensive artillery support simply evaporates without explanation. It sounds like a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

[RockinHarry]

I doubt that germans in late war had enough CB assets (guns + ammo) to effectively silence a noticable number of allied guns. On the other side and from my readings the allies depended much on spotter aircraft (and good weather) to locate german gun positions, which were usually well camouflaged and if mobile enough, changed positions frequently. So it´s also a question on how effective CB measures on the western front were in 1944 generally. When a larger offensive was planned, with long time preparations, good weather + all means of intel, some noticable effects could be surely achieved. But for the small tactical scale of a CM battle I have my doubts for adding a random and dynamic CB system. Better improve other parts of the game instead...IMHO.

[Michael Emrys]

When a larger offensive was planned, with long time preparations, good weather + all means of intel, some noticable effects could be surely achieved. But for the small tactical scale of a CM battle I have my doubts for adding a random and dynamic CB system.

Of course, it is always possible for a scenario designer to posit that his battle is part of a major offensive with all sorts of preplanned support.

(But don't take this as a retreat from my previous position that any elaborate modeling of CB in CM is not worth the effort.)

Michael

[TrailApe]

 

I love this sort of topic – being a former Gunner it strikes more of a chord than chin mantles on Panthers or which turret the Tiger II was using.

 

“On the other side and from my readings the allies depended much on spotter aircraft (and good weather) to locate german gun positions, which were usually well camouflaged and if mobile enough, changed positions frequently”

 

You are entirely correct that WW2 was the coming of age of the AOP although the spotter aircraft had operational limits imposed on them because of the fragile/slow nature of the aircraft involved and they were not the CB panacea you might think – although obviously they were immensley useful in the usual shoots.

 

Target acquisition was a whole science in itself with units assigned to the role and the Allied gunners didn't have to depend on air assets for acquisition - even back in WW1 Sound Ranging and flash spotting - not from aircraft - was a well-developed art. You can even gauge the general direction of the enemy guns from crater analysis, yes it’s a bit vague but get enough of them and you can build a picture of where the enemy artillery is firing from. Factor in the oppositions orbat, look at the map and you start getting a fair idea of where the opposition arty may be lurking. Also remember the German artillery were in the main horse drawn, this limits where they can get and how fast they can relocate.

 

As ever there is some excellent information on Nigel Evan’s site around this topic – Commonwealth orientated but what the Commonwealth did the US did just as well (without the panache and exorbitant usage of Tea)

 

http://nigelef.tripod.com/tgtacqcb.htm#Introduction

 

I agree that the in-depth parts of this are not suited to CM – who would pay for sound recording microphones and heavy arty to use ‘just in case’ your opponent bought a lot of arty assets, although the whole area could be dealt with in a generic fashion (just like air support and AAA).

 

[RockinHarry]

 

I love this sort of topic – being a former Gunner it strikes more of a chord than chin mantles on Panthers or which turret the Tiger II was using.

 

“On the other side and from my readings the allies depended much on spotter aircraft (and good weather) to locate german gun positions, which were usually well camouflaged and if mobile enough, changed positions frequently”

 

You are entirely correct that WW2 was the coming of age of the AOP although the spotter aircraft had operational limits imposed on them because of the fragile/slow nature of the aircraft involved and they were not the CB panacea you might think – although obviously they were immensley useful in the usual shoots.

 

Target acquisition was a whole science in itself with units assigned to the role and the Allied gunners didn't have to depend on air assets for acquisition - even back in WW1 Sound Ranging and flash spotting - not from aircraft - was a well-developed art. You can even gauge the general direction of the enemy guns from crater analysis, yes it’s a bit vague but get enough of them and you can build a picture of where the enemy artillery is firing from. Factor in the oppositions orbat, look at the map and you start getting a fair idea of where the opposition arty may be lurking. Also remember the German artillery were in the main horse drawn, this limits where they can get and how fast they can relocate.

 

As ever there is some excellent information on Nigel Evan’s site around this topic – Commonwealth orientated but what the Commonwealth did the US did just as well (without the panache and exorbitant usage of Tea)

 

http://nigelef.tripod.com/tgtacqcb.htm#Introduction

 

I agree that the in-depth parts of this are not suited to CM – who would pay for sound recording microphones and heavy arty to use ‘just in case’ your opponent bought a lot of arty assets, although the whole area could be dealt with in a generic fashion (just like air support and AAA).

 

Yes I know about the special observation units/Bns in all nations ORBAT´s in WW2.  The US spotter aircraft topic comes from my recent readings about the hurtgen forest battles, where from some US and german reports the spotter planes made some big impressions on german Arty. Pure appearance of them in the skies (if it was good weather...) could make german guns silence quickly, no matter if some US CB fires followed or not. The US knew pretty well where most the german guns were positioned, although not always exactly. Other CB factors in that battle were terrain (hilly forests makes some the technical sound & light ranging methods somewhat difficult) and at times lack of Arty ammo. "Effective" CB fire requires in relation a huge amount of ammo placed in the targeted area. If ammo stocks aren´t full, most commanders probably think twice about spending available ammo on those targets.IIRC the base procedure to handle enemy Arty was in order to "neutralize" a battery size unit, you need a Bn sized Arty asset with a given number of shells over a given period of time. "Neutralizing" mostly means supressing gun crews and if very lucky, also putting a gun out of action entirely. So it´s mostly a temporary affair if not assuming a battle with hour long preparation bombardements and huge number of shells.

[TrailApe]

 

Thanks for keeping this going RockinHarry.

 

You bring up a couple of good points – for example severe terrain is always going to have an effect on procedures and those big old dense dark forests of Germany will effect ALL procedures, not just CB and not even just Arty.

 

That type of environment will have infantry, armour and all support arms SNCO’s and field officers digging out different doctrinal pamphlets about ‘What the Fck to do in Big Frigging Forests’, so yes the Hurtgenwald was not the ideal place to try and use the standard drills. Local practice and best fit is the order of the day in those types of situation.

 

The Commonwealth Arty always tried for ‘Neutralising’ – their definition being “To prevent enemy movement and observation, and in cases of greater effect to prevent the effective use of enemy weapons. Effect to last during the bombardment.” So if that can be obtained by flying an Auster around at tree top  level – well let’s do it!

 

I must read up on this campaign, I only know what’s in general circulation – it was a bitch and possibly not worth the effort – any recommendations?

 

However I would take exception to your other line of thought around ammunition expenditure. The requirements and end effects of CB were well known and despite this CB was always practiced (where they had targets to fire against) – any planning for major pushes would always have a CB input and even in day to day ops a CB plan would be in effect and applied. Those Heavy Arty lads had to do something to keep them busy, H&I and CB were their bread and butter.

 

Different Artillery had different jobs – what the Commonwealth called Field Artillery (25lbers up to 105mm) would not normally give a thought to CB, they didn’t have the range and they had a different role. Medium Artillery (4.5” and 5.5”) would indulge in CB, sually at the start of an operation then switch to targets of opportunity and then their efforts were more aligned with Field Artillery. Heavy Artillery leaned more towards the strategic role in an Army Groups area and CB would form large part of that. Also bear in mind the Heavy and Mediums were further back and easier to supply, so while the 25lbrs, 75mm and 105mm Batteries/Companies might have been strapped for rounds at certain times, the bigger stuff would not have the same problems.

 

Having said all that, in the Western Theatre by the end of the war ‘pure’ CB opportunities were few and far between as the German artillery were on their last legs and just as in the tank arm, the CB lads had not a lot to fire at.

[RockinHarry]

 

 

 I must read up on this campaign, I only know what’s in general circulation – it was a bitch and possibly not worth the effort – any recommendations?

No1 web source still is Scorpio´s exhaustive web site: http://home.scarlet.be/~sh446368/sitemap.html 

[TrailApe]

Brilliant - cheers mate.