What's the reasoning for the long wait times for artillery in Combat Mission

[Simcoe]

I am not trying to say it's unrealistic, I am not an expert in any way and I would like to understand a bit better.  I was talking to my dad who was a lieutenant in an artillery detachment in Vietnam and he said mortar and artillery fire came through within minutes of it being called. 

I understand long call in times for German and Soviet artillery in WW2 but what about the US who are famous for their artillery usage?

Does it take 5 minutes in real life for a platoon leader to call in fire from a mortar platoon next to the company commander?

Does it take 10 minutes in real life to get the first spotting round from a priest artillery battery?

[BornGinger]

Maybe this type of on map SPW could help to reduce the time for artillery to arrive for the Germans in the WW2 games? But they would maybe be viewed as giving them too much firepower?

Edited November 21, 2021 by BornGinger

[chuckdyke]

I think it is realistic. Once you assign a mortar to a unit for example you plot the mission in the general direction of the objective. The real mission starts during the adjustment phase and that indeed takes a matter of minutes. 

[Simcoe]

Okay so that 5 minute wait time is them receiving the location (I can understand that taking some time), calculating the direction and angle to fire? I just figured mortars would sling rounds down range in the general direction and the person calling the fire would radio back to adjust.

[chuckdyke]

41 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

the person calling the fire would radio back to adjust.

Yes according my references mortars don't need a FDC. In the game it is all tentative compared with RL. It is how you plan the COA.

[BornGinger]

I have noticed in a quick battle I'm playing that the arrival of spotting rounds and the time it takes for the spotter, officer or FO, to call in "Fire for effect" often seems to be depend on the status of the spotter. If his experience isn't too good and if he's either nervous, shattered or the third option I forgot, the time to call in fire for effect takes longer time.

I just don't understand why a nervous or shattered spotter should take longer time to direct the spotting rounds as he's far away from the enemy when doing it.

Edited November 22, 2021 by BornGinger

[chuckdyke]

17 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

I just don't understand why a nervous or shattered spotter should take longer time to direct the spotting rounds as he's far away from the enemy when doing it.

"Ok but I hope you understand that you won't receive a Christmascard from me this year." A British captain to his FO during the Falkland's campaign. They are not too far away from the enemy. 

[chuckdyke]

The best documentary I know and it shows the time required for medium artillery. 10 to 15 minutes watch from 24 minute mark. 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Simcoe]

Thank you. I'll check that out

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

I just don't understand why a nervous or shattered spotter should take longer time to direct the spotting rounds as he's far away from the enemy when doing it.

Makes sense to me. Humans do everything less efficiently when under stress. People have poorer situational awareness when under stress, they think less clearly, and they shoot less accurately. It doesn't matter that there may or may not be much of a rational basis for the stress. About the only things we do better when under stress is running fast or punching hard. Our threat response systems evolved to keep us alive as hunter-gatherers, not to make us good modern combat soldiers. Our body shuts off resources to the brain (the biggest resource hog in our bodies) in order to free up resources for us to fight or run. But that makes every task which requires any degree of focus (which, in modern combat, is most of them) a lot harder. That includes everything from spotting the enemy (which may be part of why everyone is always complaining about spotting in CM), to adjusting artillery missions, to making decisions (there are so many spectacular blunders throughout military history not because there are a lot of stupid leaders (although there may be some of those too) but because stress makes you stupid), and even aiming a rifle (I keep trying to tell people, by real world standards Imperial Stormtroopers are actually great marksmen).

Edited November 22, 2021 by Centurian52
spelling

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

but because stress makes you stupid

Even during a friendly competition lack of mental preparedness makes a good shooter perform at only 80 % of what he or she is capable off. This is the only game which addresses this issue. 

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Okay so that 5 minute wait time is them receiving the location (I can understand that taking some time), calculating the direction and angle to fire? I just figured mortars would sling rounds down range in the general direction and the person calling the fire would radio back to adjust.

Take an 81mm mortar. Slinging rounds down range still involves figuring the range, even if roughly, from that determining the charge to fire, stripping off the excess powder bags, setting the declination and elevation and then firing the adjusting round. Time of flight for a mortar round can be 45 seconds, depending on range. All of those things in themselves don’t take that long but all those little actions add up

 

Dave

[MikeyD]

Posters always champion playing Iron mode but I'm perfectly happy playing Warrior. The reason why I like warrior is it (usually) shaves off time on artillery call-ins. 

It makes a difference in-game who is calling in artillery. The more direct the chain of command the better. A dedicated battalion FO calling in TO&E battalion assets while all of his command lights are green is probably as fast as it gets. A FO  purchased outside of battalion command calling in artillery assets purchased separately will be slower. Then there's a non-FO officer attempting to call in artillery, and other permutations that get increasingly worse.

[chuckdyke]

31 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I'm perfectly happy playing Warrior.

Good on you we all bought the game to have fun. I like Iron because I need to spot my own units, not because it is more difficult which would be a statement which is not backed by evidence. You to the consumer has the final say how this game ought to be played. 

[Simcoe]

46 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Posters always champion playing Iron mode but I'm perfectly happy playing Warrior. The reason why I like warrior is it (usually) shaves off time on artillery call-ins. 

It makes a difference in-game who is calling in artillery. The more direct the chain of command the better. A dedicated battalion FO calling in TO&E battalion assets while all of his command lights are green is probably as fast as it gets. A FO  purchased outside of battalion command calling in artillery assets purchased separately will be slower. Then there's a non-FO officer attempting to call in artillery, and other permutations that get increasingly worse.

Now I thought Warrior was the first skill level that introduced longer artillery times. Does it differ compared to Elite?

[chuckdyke]

If you play WW2 it is very generous with their communications.

 

[markshot]

Thanks for that.

I would imagine spotting on the run when you cannot see is a very tough job.

I think war gamers always have distorted perspective, because they always chose a vantage of 500-700M above the action.  Things always are much clearer.  It is amazing how difficult any game becomes taking a 3rd person views at no more than 10M.

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, markshot said:

I would imagine spotting on the run when you cannot see is a very tough job.

What I understand the way we play Soviet is like playing US in real life during WW2. The way we play WW2 is like the artillery support the Aussies had in Vietnam which took place 23 years after FB.

Edited November 22, 2021 by chuckdyke

[A Canadian Cat]

13 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Now I thought Warrior was the first skill level that introduced longer artillery times. Does it differ compared to Elite?

Page 32 says that the more realistic artillery calls start at Warrior. So @MikeyD made a little boo boo. Carry on as usual @Simcoe

[danfrodo]

For a long time I played on veteran because I liked not having to click on enemy unit to see what my men could see.  But then I saw video by Hapless saying that warrior has 'realistic' artillery response times.  That was music to my ears -- I am generally attacking and having short arty delay is great for the defender, more likely to catch my forces if pinned for short time.  So I've been on warrior mode ever since.

[Simcoe]

44 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

For a long time I played on veteran because I liked not having to click on enemy unit to see what my men could see.  But then I saw video by Hapless saying that warrior has 'realistic' artillery response times.  That was music to my ears -- I am generally attacking and having short arty delay is great for the defender, more likely to catch my forces if pinned for short time.  So I've been on warrior mode ever since.

This does bring up an interesting subject in skill levels. I have always tried to play on elite to practice for playing against human opponents but going back to Veteran or Warrior honestly sounds more fun. 

Combat Mission already condenses a battle that may take half a day into an hour so why shouldN't artillery call times be condensed? Veteran cuts them down by about 30%.

Also, is it really more fun to play on elite and have to identify infantry by the types of   ammo pouches they have? My troops would probably know so why not get an icon that shows they are a scout team?

Not saying any of them are right or wrong but I think veteran ends up being more fun for me.

Now if we could customize individual settings that would be pretty cool too. Imagine having all the rules of elite with shorter artillery times? That would be my preference.

 

[MikeyD]

I suspect we're talking mostly about US side call-in times. Things get considerably more complicated when you're on the other side, like Syrians or WWII/Cold War Russians. Then you have extra layers of bureaucracy to wade through. I just checked, it takes 18 minutes for an regular FO to call in a 240mm heavy mortar strike, 15 minutes to call in BM21 artillery rockets, but only 5 minute to call in on-map 120mm mortars. The Russian high command doesn't hand their divisional assets over to just anybody. You aren't calling in strikes so much as requesting a strike from a higher raking officer who then calls in the strike.

[chuckdyke]

Up to 81 mm they were popular because they were easy transportable. Lots of missions can be done in the so-called direct fire mode. Have a good look always at the terrain. 

[The_MonkeyKing]

And IRL there is the whole other dimension of are you actually going to get any of that artillery that was promised to you?

Shifting priority of fires, counter battery, battery is relocating.... List goes on. In reality the fires might be almost instant in perfect conditions or not arrive at all at the worst. CM has to condense these factors to a single static time.

[Holman]

It can also (especially in a WW2 setting) take time just to establish communications. Radio static, competing requests for support, etc can all get in the way.