Area Diret Fire Mode

[Guest MajorH]

No promises , but lets see if we can work up some codeable logic/rules for a suppression mode for direct fire.

I will be providing some info on the inner workings of TacOps. I would rather not get into a deeper discussion of those inner workings under this thread title unless a tidbit specifically applies to the Area Fire issue. Otherwise this topic will degenerate into numerous tangents . If something in this discussion triggers an off topic question that you absolutely have to ask , then please do it with a new message that uses a different topic title.

Issue...

At present TacOps units - except for arty and mortars - can not shoot at an area that does not show spotted and active enemy units. Currently most units have to actually see an active target unit and have a reasonable chance of hitting and hurting it or else they won't fire at all. A number of users would like to be able to order every type of unit to fire at points or small areas of ground, even if no enemy unit is currently visible there and even if there is little or no chance of harming what is there - suppressive fire, recon by fire, that sort of thing. If implemented, this kind of fire would be no where near as effective as shooting at a visible active unit but it might be useful once in a while and it would be (or at least would seem to be) somewhat more realistic in some situations.

Background ...

There are two main types of data base records in TacOps that all else must build on - unit records and weapon records. Unit records define (among many other things) the number of people and the number and types of weapons that are in a given unit. A unit record defines the smallest possible unit marker in TacOps - usually an infantry team, an infantry squad, or one vehicle. Platoon and company markers are created simply by multiplying the base unit record. A weapon record defines the capabilities of one weapon - for example one M60 machine gun. In the case of most infantry small arms, a weapon's capabilities are based on a standard of 15 seconds of plausible activity/firing. In other words, the effect of firing a rifle or an M60 machine gun is based on the expectation that the weapon will fire one or more bursts over a fifteen second period. Whatever is done with Area Fire, it must start with probability table entries to unit and or weapon records.

Ideas...

The items below are not final decisions on my part. They are provided just as initial thoughts to get the discussion going.

? What to call the feature? We need a short, snappy name that intuitively communicates what the feature does. Short is very important because most likely the feature will be implemented with a button in the Unit Orders Window and nobody likes to see huge buttons. Area Fire? Direct Area Fire? Area Direct Fire? Suppress? Suppression Fire?

The feature should be activated by a new button in the unit orders window. Perhaps similar in operation to the "Set DFTRP" button?

Area fire will be very unlikely to kill hard targets such as armored vehicles? It will be reasonably likely to suppress and occasionally cause casualties to soft targets?

? How much ground should a basic level unit or weapon be allowed to try to suppress? How should the base suppression values be increased as base level units are assembled into platoon and company sized markers. Should this be handled with entries to the unit records, the weapons records, entries to both, and or with additional universal modifiers?

? Probability tables will likely be required to adjudicate the effects of the area fire of various classes of units and or weapons vs various classes of targets. One simple way to handle this would be to assign each weapon type an area fire probability table/values that determine how much ground the weapon can attempt to suppress and whether or not 'suppression' or 'a normal hit' is achieved on an unseen enemy unit that happens to be in the beaten zone of the area fire. Remembering that casualty producing 'hits' in area fire situations are accidents, there should be a very low probability of getting anything other than transient suppression.

? One approach would be to execute an Area Fire Hit die roll (a value between 1 and 100) against each enemy unit in an area fire target zone - for each weapon fired in Area Suppression Mode. The standard for this value would be the probability that a given weapon will produce a tactically significant effect when fired at or swept over an area of ground appropriate in size to what would be typically occupied by an exposed, 9 to 13 man rifle squad for 15 seconds. Each weapon would have three percentile values that the Area Fire Hit die roll result would be tested against to determine casualty effect. If the Area Fire Hit die roll is higher than value X then there is no effect on the enemy unit. If the Area Fire Hit die roll is equal to or lower than X but higher than Y then the enemy unit is transiently suppressed. If the die roll is equal to or lower than Y then a miracle has occurred and a hit has been attained just as if the enemy unit were spotted and under normal direct fire. In the Y case the program would then simply enter the existing combat resolution routines and use the normal hit/casualty effect probabilities - doing this for Y values would be very economical code wise.

? Since the standard target is an exposed, deployed infantry squad sized target, then modifiers to the Area Fire Hit die roll would likely be appropriate for target units that conceptually occupy smaller or larger areas than the standard. Additional modifiers would likely be appropriate for target units that are 'harder' than exposed infantry such as infantry in defilade or in entrenchments, vehicles, etc.

? A unit must remain stationary to execute Area Fire?

? A unit firing Area Fire become active, revealed, and or spotted the same as if it were doing normal fire?

? A unit firing Area Fire expends ammunition at the same rate as if it were firing normal fire?

? A unit firing Area Fire expends more ammunition than it would if it were firing normal fire?

? A unit firing Area Fire will continue to do so until (a) its player owner turns off that mode of fire during an orders phase, ( it runs out of ammunition, © it moves, or (d) it is effectively fired on and hit by return fire from an enemy unit?

? In the case of unspotted infantry targets - the customary suppression and or casualty effect symbols will not be shown to the firing player and effected unit markers will not be revealed to the firing player. In the case of vehicle targets - vehicle secondary explosions will be shown and a wreck marker will be placed, but effected unit markers will not be revealed to the firing player.

That ought to be enough to prime the pump ... I gotta get back to work on the TacOps 3.0 public beta/demo version.

------------------

Best regards, Major H

majorh1@aol.com

[johnma]

Amazingly thorough. A lot of these questions, are not "whether X or not" questions, but more issues that have to be tweaked. But the basic idea sems very viable.

Not showing infantry markers, but vehicle explosions, for instance, seems like the right solution. Generally, implementing Area Fire would allow some form of fire and movement tactics, whereas the situation now is move, get fired at and fire back

[Seth]

Major,

My thoughts on a few of the things you put out on the table.

>What to call the feature?

I like Supress, it's short and obvious.

>Area fire will be very unlikely to kill hard targets such as armored vehicles?

I would certainly say it would have to. I think it would be a very foolish platoon commander who would use his SMAAWS for supression, thereby denying some trees and dirt to the enemy, only to watch helplessly later as armor rolls over him. I suppose vehicles could use their heavy weapons, though.

>A unit must remain stationary to execute Area Fire?

John Wayne aside, does infantry typically run everywhere, firing from the hip?

>? A unit firing Area Fire become active, revealed, and or spotted the same as if it were doing normal fire?

Probably should only be revealed as a generic, i.e. inf./veh. marker, or not at all if it successfully supresses.

>? A unit firing Area Fire expends more ammunition than it would if it were firing normal fire?

Certainly; the whole idea is to saturate an area, and make anyone who might be there keep his head down, right? I would still wonder whether only certain weapon types should be fired by units attempting to supress.

>In the case of vehicle targets - vehicle secondary explosions will be shown and a wreck marker will be placed, but effected unit markers will not be revealed to the firing player

This makes sense, but since your wrecks show what general type of vehicle was destroyed, you may want to only show the little smoke plume part of the graphic.

I do think some units should not have the supress option, but then I guess if someone really wants to empty his TOW launchers into the brush, maybe you should let them

Seth

[Rattler]

>>? How much ground should a basic level unit or weapon be allowed to try to suppress?<<

Depends on the weapon, I guess, as well as on the effect taking unit we are talking.

While agreeing that direct hit probabilities for kills against vehicles are tending towards miracle (i.e. suppressive effect on the tank neibouring the target tends against zero = small area = 75 ? mtrs), supressive effect generated against inf should be much wider spread.

You *will* find yourself reacting a little more cautious when shells whizz by 50 mtrs, no? (i.e. suppressive effect on the neighbouring inf tends to be higher = larger supressed area = 250 ? mtrs?)

Just guessing...

Rattler

[Guest Robert Ingoglia]

As an historian, albeit not one specializing in military history, I am confused as to what is the current standard/advocated/practiced tactical doctrine regarding area direct fire (does it vary by nation?). I do not consider it important to have a game option that is not a viable option to commanders in the field.

------------------

[Guest Michael emrys]

1. Call it "Area Fire". Not all area fire is suppressive, nor is it intended to be.

2. I should think the area an infantry team, say, could cover with area fire would depend on the number of members, how they are armed, their ammo state, and various factors that can be lumped together as "morale". The kind of terrain they are firing into would have a big effect too, with better cover acting to contract the size of the area that could be effectively covered by fire. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that a U.S. Army 6 man fire team with average ammo could be expected to cover an area of fairly open, fairly flat terrain with some brush or other concealment of 100 to 400 sq. meters during a one minute turn.

3. I would expect their rate of ammo expenditure to be less, although not having engaged in actual combat I can't say for sure. My reasoning is that if you are just popping off a few shots from time to time to see if somebody shoots back or moves around, or if you are shooting to keep somebody's head down, your fire is not going to be as intense as if you have a spotted target that you are trying to destroy.

All in all, I think you are onto a good thing here, Major. I hope you will pursue it.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 10-28-99).]

[Brad Sallows]

The solution may not necessarily lie in implementation of direct fire at unknown targets. Alternate suggestions:

1) Provide a game option for an alternate artillery feature (selected at start of scenario). Retain current functionality as one option. The second option would be based on a requirement that the user specifically select a spotting unit when initiating a mission (marking a target), and that spotter would thereafter be highlighted whenever the corresponding artillery unit were being employed (ie. during an orders or artillery dialog). If the spotter has no direct LOS to the marked location, the fire would be subject to inaccuracy on its initial round, but thereafter would be corrected commensurate with movement of the TRP. Whenever the spotter has no LOS to the impact, only explosions would be heard (no visual marker). Allow the player to transfer spotting control between units. Allow the the player to choose between regular or harassing/suppression effect (the former being the current effect, the latter allowing for increased footprint and reduced effect). One highly significant benefit of this mechanism is that it would provide players with the ability to shift indirect fire to suppress targets in depth when assaulting a wooded or urban location; the current implementation simply results in fire which roams around a grid square.

2) Enhance reconnaissance capability. Units which remain in a fixed location should have a possibility of detecting enemy units in LOS which are not yet revealed. This could depend on the defender's terrain, the spotter's equipment (eg. thermal capability, radar, optics), and if the game in any way distinguishes recce-specific units, they should be more likely to successfully spot.

Notwithstanding these suggestions, regarding the proposed feature:

? What to call the feature?

"Area Fire"

? Perhaps similar in operation to the "Set DFTRP" button?

Agree.

? Area fire will be very unlikely to kill hard targets such as armored vehicles? It will be reasonably likely to suppress and occasionally cause casualties to soft targets?

Does anyone have data that would bear out a belief that random direct fire is likely to suppress, let alone cause casualties (or provoke a response) among reasonably disciplined troops, since TacOps adopts the general philosophy that all troops are highly capable (all-around spotting and acquisition, etc)?

? How much ground should a basic level unit or weapon be allowed to try to suppress?

I suggest a 10m x 10m footprint for the basic level, based purely on gut feel. I don't believe the footprint should increase significantly (perhaps as the square root, assuming it would be applied linearly with insignificant increase in depth) with increasing assembled unit size but effect (eg. suppression/casualty probability) should increase.

? Probability tables...there should be a very low probability of getting anything other than transient suppression.

Agree.

? One approach...

How easily could the existing indirect fire model be used, with a restriction to prevent small arms from achieving kills on armoured targets?

? Since the standard target...

Agree.

? A unit must remain stationary to execute Area Fire?

Not necessarily, particularly for those units with stabilized main armament.

? A unit firing Area Fire become active, revealed, and or spotted the same as if it were doing normal fire?

Agree.

? A unit firing Area Fire expends ammunition at the same rate as if it were firing normal fire?

I would recommend less (and with proportionately less effect). I suspect most troops in a combat situation tend to maximum rates of fire when engaging known targets, but slower rates of fire tend to be ordered for suppression.

? A unit firing Area Fire expends more ammunition than it would if it were firing normal fire?

Depends on rate and duration.

? A unit firing Area Fire will continue to do so until...

Agree. Area fire used as covering fire would have a duration contingent on some other activity being completed, so the player must assume responsibility for control unless game effects (eg. being fired upon) intercede.

? In the case of unspotted infantry targets...

Agree, except perhaps explosions should only be heard unless a friendly unit has a direct LOS to the location.