_Itchy Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 I was just wondering what the official rationale for limiting pre-planned artillery to a maximum of 15 minutes after the start of the battle is. Playing some of the longer missions in Cold War as the Soviets especially, I find that limitation really frustrating. Heavy artillery with its long lead times and requirement for LOS from the observer once the game has begun, usually means that either the advance has to stop for 20 minutes while the observer gets in position and corrects the spotting, or your advance has to do without that incredibly useful asset altogether. Given the guess work involved in using long delay, pre-planned artillery typically means the further ahead you plan the greater the risk that your fires will be ineffectual, I don't see a problem in allowing greater time delays. What am I missing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Yeah, there's a number of things like that - whilst it's certainly going to be difficult to pre-planned effectively deep into a scenario, there doesn't seem to be a reason why this can't be set to 5/10/15 - why not 20, or why not 7 for that matter? Similar to quick battle points - it's useful to also have some guidelines, but the lack of a "custom" points value seems odd. It's probably one of those holdovers from cmsf1 and the assumptions made at that point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Itchy Posted February 17, 2022 Author Share Posted February 17, 2022 Ah, so just... legacy then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 The Russians across all Combat Missions desperately need more complex pre planned bombardments. How cool would it be to schedule a 15min bombardment at one place then switch to rolling bombardment in another spot immediately after. Also, it feels so bad only being able to adjust ALL artillery rather than moving individual batteries to different fires. A man can dream… 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 If you want complex arty fireplans, you can achieve them using TRPs and enough spotter-capable assets. If you want them to be strictly pre-planned, you can write the plan yourself, and then constrain yourself to the predesignated targets as play progresses. You'd probably have to make the scenario yourself, and it'd be down to anyone you shared it with, to adhere to the specified (or their own) fireplan. It's probably not something that's doable in a QB environment, but QBs aren't really "complex fireplan" fodder, IMO. I'm not saying that a more complex artillery interface permitting convoluted, protracted predesignated fire support wouldn't be a fun thing to noodle about in, but it's not there now, and I don't get the feeling it's the kind of thing that BFC considers a priority just now, so perhaps you can have the fun you want with the tools currently available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Indeed. TRPs are the way to "pre-plan" stuff that isn't plannable inside 15 minutes, and should be leaned on for precisely that reason. I don't think this is a desperately important point - the tools that currently exist will do a decent job of it - but it would be nice to have some more control. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncc1701e Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Speaking of code legacy, if the Area Target command could be splitted in two: Circular target (existing Area target)Rectangular target (new!) Perhaps something for Engine 5. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThathumanHayden Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Speaking of TRPs, is there a way to show an icon above them once the battle has started. I always forget where my TRP are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey_Fox Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 5 minutes ago, ThathumanHayden said: Speaking of TRPs, is there a way to show an icon above them once the battle has started. I always forget where my TRP are. I know some people have been editing their sizes and colours in order to make them more visible, but I don't know how they do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ThathumanHayden said: Speaking of TRPs, is there a way to show an icon above them once the battle has started. I always forget where my TRP are. No icons above the TRPs after game start. However there is a mod (or two?) that make the TRPs more visible. I got the below idea from @womble. This is what I often do. During setup, to put a waypoint on a TRP's location and draw a 50m circular arc from that waypoint to see exactly what the TRP covers. Don't forget to give the Waypoint element a "permanent" Pause order. The purple circle was just me playing around with a way to mark a danger close area. Edited February 17, 2022 by MOS:96B2P 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Itchy Posted February 17, 2022 Author Share Posted February 17, 2022 44 minutes ago, womble said: If you want complex arty fireplans, you can achieve them using TRPs and enough spotter-capable assets... True. Though, if you prefer to play scenarios as I do, you are stuck with what the designer gives you. I am playing one of the Kriegsburg battles at the moment. 2 hrs duration, big map, lots of artillery assets and no TRP's. I would say that is more often the case than not. Of course, scenario designers could add more TRP's, but a few extra options for time delay would be a more generic solution. I was more just curious to know the 'why' of this limitation rather than expecting a fix. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 10 minutes ago, _Itchy said: I am playing one of the Kriegsburg battles at the moment. 2 hrs duration, big map, lots of artillery assets and no TRP's. Hmm, TRPs could have been easily added. I admit, it did not occur to me and did not come up in play testing. Maybe next time . TRPs are still easy to add if you open the scenario editor. Let me know what you think or any other feed back you have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, womble said: If you want complex arty fireplans, you can achieve them using TRPs and enough spotter-capable assets. If you want them to be strictly pre-planned, you can write the plan yourself, and then constrain yourself to the predesignated targets as play progresses. You'd probably have to make the scenario yourself, and it'd be down to anyone you shared it with, to adhere to the specified (or their own) fireplan. It's probably not something that's doable in a QB environment, but QBs aren't really "complex fireplan" fodder, IMO. I'm not saying that a more complex artillery interface permitting convoluted, protracted predesignated fire support wouldn't be a fun thing to noodle about in, but it's not there now, and I don't get the feeling it's the kind of thing that BFC considers a priority just now, so perhaps you can have the fun you want with the tools currently available. It’s just tough with the Russians because you may only have a single spotter who has access to artillery assets. I think being able to individually adjust batteries using TRP’s would be a good middle ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 The trouble with just putting TRPs into a scenario is that there's no way to enforce their use for preplanned arty, and as a freeform combination of lots of highly responsive artillery assets, they'd risk people finding the scenario "too easy" if they didn't properly comprehend the designer's intention. Or who abuse the "gift that keeps on dropping HE" in a HvH setting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 15 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said: Hmm, TRPs could have been easily added. I admit, it did not occur to me and did not come up in play testing. Maybe next time . TRPs are still easy to add if you open the scenario editor. Let me know what you think or any other feed back you have. May I ask why a single observer can’t adjust individual batteries? Whenever I try it makes me adjust ALL batteries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Simcoe said: May I ask why a single observer can’t adjust individual batteries? Whenever I try it makes me adjust ALL batteries. I think it is to replicate the limitations that observers faced in WW2. And it was explained better than I can in the manual for Red Thunder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 23 minutes ago, Simcoe said: May I ask why a single observer can’t adjust individual batteries? Whenever I try it makes me adjust ALL batteries. I'm trying to remember how this came to be back in the day. IIRC at one time a spotter could spot for multiple batteries. However, it was argued that having one spotter (like a Platoon HQ) direct multiple batteries on multiple (often widely separated) targets was unrealistic. This was especially possible with the use of TRPs. So there would be situations, in game, where a WW2 platoon HQ would simultaneously be directing the fire of the platoon 60mm mortars on one target, the battalion 81mm mortars on a second target and battery of 105mm howitzers on a third unseen target with the use of a TRP etc. It was changed to one spotter one battery (I think CMSF1 still has it the old way, one spotter, multiple batteries). However pre-planned fires still allow one spotter and multiple batteries & targets probably since the planning / work / coordination was done over time prior to the battle. Also in a given TOE there may not be enough spotters to assign all the needed different pre-planned fires. Also after a battery FFE the spotter can call a different battery and different target. This leads to a frustrating often unexpected problem for the player not accustomed to it. He has multiple fire missions going controlled by his most experienced FO. One of them needs adjusting. He adjusts one and, to his dismay, all adjust to the same new target. I think this situation is probably an attempt to keep a gamey player from doing unrealistic things with a spotter while still allowing multiple pre-planned fires (one spotter) and ability for a spotter to work with a different battery after the first battery is firing for effect. I occasionally forget about this rule and end up yelling unkind words at my computer screen.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 14 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said: I occasionally forget about this rule and end up yelling unkind words at my computer screen.... Good post, mental note taken, probably soon to be forgotten with the same result as yours . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said: I'm trying to remember how this came to be back in the day. IIRC at one time a spotter could spot for multiple batteries. However, it was argued that having one spotter (like a Platoon HQ) direct multiple batteries on multiple (often widely separated) targets was unrealistic. This was especially possible with the use of TRPs. So there would be situations, in game, where a WW2 platoon HQ would simultaneously be directing the fire of the platoon 60mm mortars on one target, the battalion 81mm mortars on a second target and battery of 105mm howitzers on a third unseen target with the use of a TRP etc. It was changed to one spotter one battery (I think CMSF1 still has it the old way, one spotter, multiple batteries). However pre-planned fires still allow one spotter and multiple batteries & targets probably since the planning / work / coordination was done over time prior to the battle. Also in a given TOE there may not be enough spotters to assign all the needed different pre-planned fires. Also after a battery FFE the spotter can call a different battery and different target. This leads to a frustrating often unexpected problem for the player not accustomed to it. He has multiple fire missions going controlled by his most experienced FO. One of them needs adjusting. He adjusts one and, to his dismay, all adjust to the same new target. I think this situation is probably an attempt to keep a gamey player from doing unrealistic things with a spotter while still allowing multiple pre-planned fires (one spotter) and ability for a spotter to work with a different battery after the first battery is firing for effect. I occasionally forget about this rule and end up yelling unkind words at my computer screen.... that’s too bad. I’m not a programmer but it seems like it wouldn’t be too hard to assign an observer rating. A platoon leader would be a one and a dedicated observer could be 3 corresponding to the number of batteries they can’t control. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 2 hours ago, Simcoe said: A platoon leader would be a one Apart from mortars they should not control any. If they do The FO should be in direct contact with his Company HQ and use a landmark as a reference point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: Apart from mortars they should not control any. If they do The FO should be in direct contact with his Company HQ and use a landmark as a reference point. That’s fine. You can put them as one and deny them all artillery except for mortars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 9 minutes ago, Simcoe said: That’s fine. You can put them as one and deny them all artillery except for mortars. Exactly what I do. FO is a highly trained specialist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, chuckdyke said: Exactly what I do. FO is a highly trained specialist. For sure. I’m working through the CW Soviet campaign and im finding it pretty useful to hold onto at least one mortar battery to be used by individual platoon leaders. You never know when u may need it. the big guns are only for observers though. Edited February 18, 2022 by Simcoe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 5 hours ago, Simcoe said: the big guns are only for observers though. True mortars are a different category. I listen to the guys who do this for a living. Mortars don't use the Fire Direction Centre. We have as model the US, Russia or China doesn't share much information on You Tube. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcoe Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 49 minutes ago, chuckdyke said: True mortars are a different category. I listen to the guys who do this for a living. Mortars don't use the Fire Direction Centre. We have as model the US, Russia or China doesn't share much information on You Tube. I need to check this guy out more. He has a couple videos on Combat Mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.