BH's Arty Wish List

[Bullethead]

I have said CM does arty just about right. I still think so, and it's orders of magnitude better than any other game I know. However, after playing CM a few months, I've noticed several areas where even CM's arty could use some improvements, either as tweaks or new features. These changes would make CM's arty even more realistic and would also facilitate player efforts to develop large campaigns, such as CMMC. Here's what I'd like to see in the future, whether in a patch or CM2+, in no particular order, although some things do go together.

NOTE: All these suggestions apply ONLY to off-map artillery. They do not apply to off-map mortars because I know very little about mortars. But I do know that mortars and arty do many things differently, so IMHO there should be more distinction between them in the game.

Tracking Spotter Ammo by Shell and Fuze Types

At present, we have the paradoxical situation of spotters having only VT or only impact fuzes, but also with generic shells that can be used either as HE or smoke at the whim of the player. I realize the latter, at least, is a well-intentioned compromise, but I don't think it works well in practice (see further comments in Smokescreen section). And the only reason I can see for the former is a concession to the purchase point system, which I don't understand because the price of all other units is constant regardless of changes to ammo quantity and types in the editor. In any case, it's not very realistic to segregate fuzes when batteries have boxes of all types by the truckload. Therefore, I think the best solution to both problems is to track spotter ammo by type just like on-map units.

To this end, I propose tracking the following types of arty spotter ammo individually for each spotter unit: VT HE, MT (mechanical time) HE, impact HE, smoke, illumination, and WP. Give the spotter some quantity of each type he's able to have due to nationality and date, and make the player specify which type to shoot in any given fire mission. Have the spotter cost a fixed price regardless of ammo. The choice of fuze and ammo is up to the FO in real life, so this is realistic. It also allows mixing VT and other types of fuzes in the same battery (and possibly the same fire mission), as in real life. Finally, it eliminates the unrealistic flexibility inherent in the generic rounds for both smoke and HE (see Smokescreen section).

I'm sure you noticed I want MT fuzes and WP and illume ammo. I know we discussed both MT and WP months ago, and I remain unconvinced by your arguments. As for MT fuzes, these are required for smokescreens anyway (see Smokescreen section) so I fail to see why they can't be used for HE as well, provided you give them a longer delay in starting FFE than other fuze types. And WP rounds were and are available in real life. Tracking them separately from "harmless" smoke shells, and limiting the max quantity each spotter unit can have, would prevent their over-use. Illume rounds are discussed in their own section.

Orientable Linear Impact Patterns

Quite often, arty is asked to fire along a stretch of road or treeline, or lay a smokescreen across a certain area of the front. This calls for a linear pattern oriented according to the target area, not always fixed E-W as at present with the "regular" impact pattern selection (and not available at all with smoke missions). Thus, I would like to see the option of calling for a pattern about 200m x 100m. I would like to specify the center point and then be able to rotate the long axis like for placing a section of barbed wire. Such a mission would take longer for FFE to start than the HE missions currently available, but not by much.

Smokescreen Mechanics Tweaks

At present, firing a smokescreen is the same in all respects as firing impact HE, except for end result. It requires no additional time and lands in the same circular pattern as the "wide" HE mission. IMHO, neither of these aspects is realistic, at least for arty smoke. Smokescreens should IMHO be in a much more linear pattern, similar to that produced by the "regular" HE mission but oriented in any direction desired instead of E-W. Also firing a smokescreen is much more complex than shooting impact HE, due to having to a) adjust the mechanical time fuzes for proper burst height, adjust initial impacts to account for wind in the target area, and c) arrange the shells into the desired linear pattern instead of all guns aiming at the same point and producing a circle. Thus, it should take considerably longer to achieve smoke FFE than HE FFE--I'd say double the time for shooting HE at the same target by the same spotter. The trade-off, however, is that you end up with a more effective screen covering a wider stretch of front than the "snowball" pattern we have now.

Specifying Number of Rounds for FFE

Currently, once a spotter orders a fire mission, it has an indefinite duration and the player can only stop it at the end of a turn. It would be much more realistic for an arty spotter (as opposed to mortar) to have to specify in advance, when he first orders the mission, how many rounds of FFE to use. Any spotting rounds determined by CM to be needed before FFE would be in addition to this quantity of FFE, and would be deducted from the spotter's available supply just like the FFE rounds are when they are fired. Players would thus have to think ahead like a real FO and decide how many rounds are needed for the desired results on this target. This is in addition to specifying the type of round and/or fuze. Also note that in real life, arty often mixes impact and MT or VT fuzes in the same fire mission for a general purpose effect.

Adjusting FFE

By this I mean shifting the spotter's point of aim and incurring only a slight interruption of FFE. The present method allows this only within a 100m radius of the current point of aim. IOW, essentially all currently allowed "adjustments" are of less than 100m. IMHO, this is far from realistic because most of the allowed "adjustable" area is within the kill radius of the shell pattern already falling. Thus in real life, FOs hardly ever make such small changes; instead, they usually shift by 100m increments.

So what I propose is to change the allowed "adjustment" area into 2 concentric rings, say about 20m wide, centered on the current point of aim. The inner ring would have a 100m mean radius and the outer ring a 200m mean radius. When the player wants to "adjust" FFE, he would get the light green targeting line and short delay time only within these 2 rings. Everywhere else within a 300m radius of the current point of aim would be an invalid target. The targeting tool would be red in this area, for target not allowed. Targets beyond of 300m from the current point of aim would be new targets with delay time starting over.

If this is too complicated, at least please enlarge the "adjustment" area to a 200-300m radius. The 100m radius currently allowed is just way too small to be realistic.

Number of Guns per Spotter

Currently, this is hard-wired to 4 guns for all arty spotters. It would be much better, IMHO, to make this number something players can change in the editor. First, most UK/CW batteries had 8 guns all shooting at the same target, so giving a Brit player 2 x 25pdr spotters allows unrealistic flexibility. In addition, some of the really big guns like 240mm usually had less than 4 guns per battery, so having 4 shells going off at once makes these more effective than they should be. Finally, in campaigns, batteries may lose guns so spotters might end up controlling only 3 instead of the usual 4.

In-Game TRP Creation

In real life, there is no difference in process between creating a TRP and getting the spotting rounds onto a target. Knowing this, real artillerymen record the gun data for when the FO finally calls for FFE, thus creating what CM calls a TRP. That means they can come back later and hit this same spot just like it was a registered TRP set up before the battle. Therefore, I'd like this as a new feature. Once the spotting round process is over and FFE starts on a new target, the FO's point of aim becomes a TRP on the map, which can be used as such in the future without having to go through the whole spotting process again. This would apply only to the original FFE location and not to any "adjusted" locations that the aiming point is subsequently moved to without having to start spotting all over.

Changing Your Mind in the Orders Phase

If you change a spotter unit's target more than once in the orders phase, you incur an increased delay before FFE starts. Charles said this was because the FDC personnel started work on your original target and now have to refigure everything. This doesn't make much sense to me because during the orders phase, time is stopped. At least it is for all other units, so I don't understand why it still "runs" for artillery. In addition, this penalty imposes the same sort of pressure on the player as a realtime game, which I thought CM was trying to avoid by having turns. Therefore, I would like to see this penalty removed to allow players to change their minds as often as they want during the orders phase.

Illumination Rounds

This is something that's sorely missing from night battles. I realize that dynamic lighting effects are a big problem, but my suggestion doesn't require that. What I propose is that when an illume round pops, the only visual effect that happens to the battlefield is that some sort of temporary marker appears, representing the center of the illuminated area. Inside some radius around this marker (determined by shell size, proper placement, etc), units have an LOS distance about like dawn or dusk instead of night. Also, units outside this area can see units inside the area, provide not blocking terrain is in the way, but not vice versa. I know this doesn't cover all aspects of battlefield illumination, but I think it hits the high points and is better than nothing. Firing illume missions should have a longer delay than HE, due to the need to set mechanical time fuzes.

Anyway, that's my arty wish list. Thanks for taking the time to read it all

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[tss]

I agree with your suggestions. However, I would like to add one more:

The scenario designer should be able to specify the general firing direction of artillery. This matters because the scattering is much greater along the flight path than perpendicular to it.

Specifying Number of Rounds for FFE

Agreed, completely.

Number of Guns per Spotter

Also, in some cases the artillery spotter could specify the number of firing guns. Here in Finland the basic number of guns to fire a mission was a batallion (12 guns) but the spotters could alternatively call the fire of 1-2 batteries.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 09-23-2000).]

[John Kettler]

I really like this thread and would explicitly invite feedback from the Redlegs out there on the ideas put forward by Bullethead in his superbly argued case and in the comments made thereafter.

From reading FM 6-20 years ago I'm aware that artillery does have at least two patterns, a converged sheaf used against point targets and an open sheaf for maximum ground coverage. I don't know whether other patterns were used during WW II, unless we invoke the barrage, a topic hugely outside of CM's scope. I would like someone qualified to please comment on this question of battery firing patterns.

I would like to see a spotting round as something creating a pillared smoke like an AFV kill, in white, though, which would be visible over typical European trees. Theoretically, a compass measurement and a pair of binoculars with a mil scale (for range estimation) should suffice to put the fire pretty much where it's needed, even though the target proper can't be directly seen.

For that matter, I believe, based on watching lots of WW II artillery fire footage, that we should be able to see artillery bursts over all but really high obstacles. As cool as the new explosion graphics are, they don't even come close to showing how much dirt and debris a ground burst throws high into the air, even from a small shell. Can anyone from the artillery community tell me how high a dirt plume a 105 and 155 throw up when they hit?

I would further add that I know of no inherent real world mechanism which would cause the extreme pattern spread unobserved fire has in CM. Note, I'm not talking about where the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) is relative to the Designated Mean Point of Impact (DMPI). Given map errors, FO error in determining own position (average 200m for that alone, based on Army studies) and a host of other small errors, I have no problem with the centroid of the pattern's not going quite where I want it. I do have a problem with the intrapattern spacing (distance between the shell impacts) oscillating wildly from volley to volley when I am not using Target Wide. I understand the concept of round-to-round dispersion, in range especially, but it shouldn't be an off target, fairly tight string one volley and four almost random shots which miss the good sized woods the next. I've run ballistic dispersion tests myself (got an Army award for them), and I know it just doesn't work that way. The pattern will deviate from the DMPI, creating the MPI, around which the rounds will congregate according to the laws of statistics. There is no exterior ballistic phenomenon which would create such extreme variation as I'm seeing in the inter volley impact pattern. I also confess myself baffled as to why the impact pattern follows the gun-to-target line and is not perpendicular to it.

This is even more odd when one looks at the way artillery is deployed in the field. The most common deployment is in a simple line, which parallels the front line. This is true to this day. Just look at pictures of Russian D-30 122mm howitzers deployed in Chechnya. Other deployments are possible, of course, and offer greater pattern depth, but they take longer and require more survey work. So, why are my shells arriving in a pattern counterintuitive to what logic would lead me to expect?

Inquiringly,

John Kettler

[Grognerd_Fogman]

BH, as far as changing you your mind during the orders phase why don't you do what I do. I start the phase by plotting/re-plotting all of my artillery first, then do the rest of the units. That way if I mess myself up, I just exit and reload the turn.

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[crash]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Orientable Linear Impact Patterns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All my wwii reading indicates that this was possible, and several cardboard wwii games model differing dispersion patterns.

This issue has already cost me in a (now completed) PBEM: my opponent was lined-up in foxholes at the edge of a wooded, but his line was not the same line as the artillery dispersion. I spent a lot of rounds to displace one squad; were the pattern Orientable, I could have brought it right on top of the entire platoon - which matches 'real-world' actions.

Of course, CM is already ahead of any other wwii tactical _computer_ game for artillery handling.

The rest of what you say makes perfect sense. No surprise coming from a professional cannon-cocker.

Are these requests codable? As a former professional coder with some simulation experience, yes. Where it lies in the priority list is another question, which only BTS can answer.

Are they retro-fittable into the existing code base? Most likely not. The modelling paradigm would have to be changed, with lots of module side-effects.

[tss]

John Kettler wrote:

Can anyone from the artillery community tell me how high a dirt plume a 105 and 155 throw up when they hit?

I don't know that but when I was in army I witnessed two times what a modern 130mm coastal gun round does when it is fired with delayed fuze. The cloud of water was 150 meters high and it remained visible for 20-30 seconds.

- Tommi

[Bullethead]

Tommi said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The scenario designer should be able to specify the general firing direction of artillery. This matters because the scattering is much greater along the flight path than perpendicular to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, this would be a cool feature. Be able to say each battery is like NW of SE of the battlefield instead of E or W.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Kettler wrote:

Can anyone from the artillery community tell me how high a dirt plume a 105 and 155 throw up when they hit?

I don't know that but when I was in army I witnessed two times what a modern 130mm coastal gun round does when it is fired with delayed fuze. The cloud of water was 150 meters high and it remained visible for 20-30 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's something I complain about in most naval games--the shell splashes last as long as when you toss a pebble in a pond, when they should last a LONG time like this.

But as to hitting dirt, in my experience there is a considerable difference in shellburst sizes due to both caliber and ground conditions. The bigger the shell, of course, the more stuff it can throw up and the higher it throws it, while drier ground provides more dust that hangs in the air longer. Without this dust, land shellbursts don't last very long at all.

In general, the cloud of dirt thrown up by all shells fills a roughly cylindrical volume with approximately equal height and diameter. 105mm clouds are about 15 feet on these dimensions. 155's are about twice the dimensions of 105's, and 203's are about twice the dimensions of 155's. When I first joined the Corps, my regiment had all 3 of these calibers and watching regimental TOTs allowed for very good comparisons.

In the desert, or if dirt is very dry, dust from a 105's burst will hang in place for 10 seconds or so, with time increasing with caliber up to like 30-45 seconds for a 203. But when shooting damp dirt or mud, there's very little dust so duration of the burst is simply the time required to fling a clod however high and let it fall back down--just a few seconds.

Airbursts, however, leave puffs of smoke in the air. You know, like the flak bursts around bombers. These can last a minute or more and the wind tends to just move them over without breaking them up too much.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Bullethead]

John Kettler said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would further add that I know of no inherent real world mechanism which would cause the extreme pattern spread unobserved fire has in CM. Note, I'm not talking about where the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) is relative to the Designated Mean Point of Impact (DMPI). Given map errors, FO error in determining own position (average 200m for that alone, based on Army studies) and a host of other small errors, I have no problem with the centroid of the pattern's not going quite where I want it. I do have a problem with the intrapattern spacing (distance between the shell impacts) oscillating wildly from volley to volley when I am not using Target Wide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. I agree, this needs to be addressed as well, because it does not seem to be internally consistent.

In CM, the MPI and DMPI always correspond even if the spotter has no LOS. And shooting with no LOS about doubles the normal time required for FFE to start. So it seems to me the way to interpret these facts is to assume that the spotting round adjustment process takes longer due to the FO having to rely on sound and/or smoke plumes rising about trees. However, eventually he gets on target, so the MPI and DMPI correspond.

But given this state of affairs, I see no justification for having a higher incidence of wild shots during FFE for blind fire than observed fire. Having gotten the rounds on the DMPI, there is no mechanism operating on the off-map gunners any different from in an observed mission. The gunners are just pumping out rounds at a point selected by the FO, just like normal. It doesn't matter to the gunners if the FO can see the target or not, because the gunners can't see ANY indirect fire target.

To me, there are 2 ways to handle this situation, and I'd like to have both. One way is to do like at present, with the extra spotting time required to get the MPI on the DMPI, but once this is achieved, have no more wild shots than for any other fire mission. Another way would be to reduce the spotting time required and have the MPI at some random distance and direction from the DMPI. Then allow the FO to shift the on-going FFE to the DMPI using the normal "adjustment" procedure, whether current or changed as I suggest.

Both of these methods are used in real life, depending on the circumstances. If time is less important than accuracy and ammo conservation, then FOs take the time to get the MPI on or very close to the DMPI before calling FFE. OTOH, if you need shells RIGHT NOW, have extra shells to burn in off-target FFE, and aren't that worried about friendly fire, then the quicker method is used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also confess myself baffled as to why the impact pattern follows the gun-to-target line and is not perpendicular to it.

This is even more odd when one looks at the way artillery is deployed in the field. The most common deployment is in a simple line, which parallels the front line. ... So, why are my shells arriving in a pattern counterintuitive to what logic would lead me to expect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, another thing that could stand improvement. You mentioned Russian guns--the US also uses a linear battery formation. However, I've been told by UK/CW artillerymen that their batteries were and are generally arranged in a circle. I'm not sure about the Germans.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Renaud]

John:

4.2" mortar HE impacting dry rocky sandy soil makes a tall plume easily visible for half a minute. I was nearby the firing positions and the range looked to be about 5-6km. The plume was really huge, like 100'. It was about the same configuration as the old 2-d smoke sprites. I guess this will only figure in 'dry' weather in arid locations (not CM1) like the mediterranean, or russian steppes.

Ren

[Guest Michael emrys]

Good posts. I would hope that BTS would give them serious consideration.

Michael

[L.Tankersley]

Nice points. Gee, you must read a lot about artillery or somethin'.

I agree with many of these points. (I don't think I disagree with any of them, but there are a few I'm particularly fond of:

Changing your mind in the orders phase - yes, yes, yes. This is damn annoying, it is inconsistent with all other orders issued in the orders phase (which can be changed/edited without penalty), and there's no compelling reality-based argument for it. Doubly so since as Grognerd points out, you can reload the PBEM file (or a handy saved game) and issue the changed orders without penalty. It adds a "twitch-factor" into what is otherwise not a twitch game. Most of the time, when I "change my mind in the orders phase," it's because I either mis-clicked with the mouse, or because I'm trying to estimate the radius of "adjusting fire" vice "new fire mission." An actual FO won't have to deal with any of this -- he just calls in the grid coordinates or the adjustment instructions or whatever, and they're off.

Specifying number of rounds for FFE – There's not a scenario goes by that I don't wish for this feature. It really accentuates the inter-turn boundary and destroys a lot of immersion, plus I think it restricts the player with artillery quite a lot. It also leads to strange workarounds like adjusting fire 2m when you don't really want it adjusted, just to incur a brief delay before the FFE starts falling again to limit the number of rounds you'll lose. Bah, artificial!

Adjusting FFE - I'd agree with this, but even failing the increase in radius I'd like to see a graphical representation of the "allowed adjustment zone" to avoid the tedious trial-and-error method.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Jager 7]

Great posts by BH and John K.,

Haven't digested all of it yet for commentary but will address the dirt/smoke/debris kicked up by arty rounds.

Most of what you see in a live fire is not necessarily dust but smoke from the HE mixed with dust. Even in rocky terrain there is still a considerable smoke cloud visible from quite a distance when using HE. It hovers in the air for a length of time depending on wind conditions.

Yesterday we adjusted 105mm rounds into a treeline along a creek bed (1800 meters distant from our OP). The trees are approximately between 10 to 15 meters tall. From impact it took only about two seconds to see the smoke created by the shell and to spot it for adjustments. 1800 meters is far more than most artillery engagement ranges in CM. I have adjusted 155mm arty rounds in the desert at ranges of 7,000 meters with little trouble during daylight. IMHO unless an FO in CM is trying to adjust arty fire onto a target behind a large hill, there are no logical LOS obstructions to 105mm and larger arty rounds in CM.

Out here...

[John Kettler]

Excellent feedback from the troops! This is precisely the kind of information I was hoping for. Does anyone have any information on WW II

battery impact patterns?

Delightedly,

John Kettler

[Roborat]

Just a comment on deployment patterns, I don't know about WWII, but I know modern SOP is to deploy in a W shape, or staggered line, for canadian 105s and I think 155s. Also, is that info about deploying in a circle correct? That would a possibility of one gun firing over another, a major safety violation, don't you think? Also, for 105 HE, the kill radius is considered to be 30m, so adjusting at less than say 50m is pointless.

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

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

[Supertanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

I agree with many of these points. (I don't think I disagree with any of them, but there are a few I'm particularly fond of:

Changing your mind in the orders phase - yes, yes, yes. This is damn annoying, it is inconsistent with all other orders issued in the orders phase (which can be changed/edited without penalty), and there's no compelling reality-based argument for it. Doubly so since as Grognerd points out, you can reload the PBEM file (or a handy saved game) and issue the changed orders without penalty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear, hear! Moving the aiming point to force delay and exit/reload to avoid delay are both things I do to get around what I perceive as a limitation of the game system. To me, when players have to come up with workarounds for a feature, that makes it eligible for removal or change.

I also monkey around with the delay in order to better coordinate my troops' charge with the end of the artillery barrage, not just to conserve ammo. Bullethead, do you have any suggestions for improvements in this coordination, or am I making my troops follow the barrage too closely? I'd like to be able to give my FO an order to watch the friendlies approach, and then stop the barrage when they are within a certain distance of the target point.

[Bullethead]

Roborat said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just a comment on deployment patterns, I don't know about WWII, but I know modern SOP is to deploy in a W shape, or staggered line, for canadian 105s and I think 155s. Also, is that info about deploying in a circle correct? That would a possibility of one gun firing over another, a major safety violation, don't you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I was told by a currently serving Kiwi FO, who said it was pretty standard for all you CW types. I agree it sounds strange, but he knows more about it than I do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, for 105 HE, the kill radius is considered to be 30m, so adjusting at less than say 50m is pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, and you expect to have a pattern more than 1 shellburst wide, so with the whole pattern you hose a 100m width (at least) with 105s. Hence no real need to shift less than 100m, either.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Bullethead]

Supertanker said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, do you have any suggestions for improvements in this coordination, or am I making my troops follow the barrage too closely?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in theory you're supposed to follow so close you take a few casualties from your own barrage, but it's hard to get the troops to accept this in real life .

What I do is sneak or crawl my troops up to the very edge of the arty pattern while it's still falling. At the end of the next turn, I stop the shells and order the bayonet charge. This gives me a gap of like 15 seconds for the troops to obey the order to move, but that's generally no real problem--the enemy is still going to be suppressed when they arrive because they start from so close. But this method is really no better than using some other gamey thing, such as a slight adjustment, to coordinate troops and arty.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead:

What I do is sneak or crawl my troops up to the very edge of the arty pattern while it's still falling. At the end of the next turn, I stop the shells and order the bayonet charge. This gives me a gap of like 15 seconds for the troops to obey the order to move,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I'm trying to do a really close assault behind the arty like this I'll actually plot moves all the way from where the troops are into the attack target with a multiple waypoints. I'll make the first few (or even all) be crawls so that the troops will go slowly, and then at the next orders phase I'll cancel the barrage and change all the waypoints to runs (lately I've started running them up to contact and changing to sneak to make them more likely to fire). The crawls keep them from accidentally running into the barrage, and the preplotting of the whole thing eliminates the delay. Gamey? Not really. It's like firing a smoke for the last round of the barrage to tell the troops to get off their bellies and run in. They know to run when the barrage stops, they just don't know in advance when it will happen.

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most of what you see in a live fire is not necessarily dust but smoke from the HE mixed with dust. Even in rocky terrain there is still a considerable smoke cloud visible from quite a distance when using HE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But IMHO, this also depends on fuzing. A superquick will give you more visible smoke than other types that let the shell get some ways into the ground before it explodes. So often you use one type of fuze and/or shell for the spotter rounds, so the FO can see the burst easily, and then switch to something else for the FFE once you're on target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yesterday we adjusted 105mm rounds into a treeline along a creek bed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trying for a linear pattern along this treeline?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMHO unless an FO in CM is trying to adjust arty fire onto a target behind a large hill, there are no logical LOS obstructions to 105mm and larger arty rounds in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I discovered things are a bit different in combat than they are at the range. Among other things, in combat, you have all these other people firing shells all over the area, so sometimes it's hard to tell which one is yours . Also, there's generally a lot of smoke and dust in the air from all the previous destruction. So I've found that sometimes spotting can be a lot harder than you expect.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Jager 7]

BH,

I agree that in combat there is much more confusion and many more things competing for the observers attention. Yet being able to spot his own round is fairly easy as he should know where to expect it and he can also request "splash" which is a five second "head's up" sent to him by the FDC specifically to help him spot his own round in all the clutter.

As for fusing. The only other fuze that one might use that may reduce the spotting would be delay. .005 seconds after the round impacts. That forces the projectile under ground or causes it to ricochet if the surface if rock or concrete. Delay is usually used against troops with overhead cover or troops in a tree line in order to avoid tree bursts. It's also used to adjust fire in Danger Close situation (within 600M of friendlies.) For HE fuse quick (point detonating) is standard for adjust and in effect.

I still maintain that at the ranges used most often for CM battles it would be hard to find an obstruction that would totally block the smoke from a normal HE round.

As a sidelight to your other point about lots of smoke and dust being kicked up..this is not modeled in CM at all. After about four rounds of HE in any one area LOS through that area would be completely obscured until the smoke cleared. The more volleys fired over several minutes and you would have a complete LOS obstruction that would persist for several minutes after the last volley was fired.

AS far as I know the lazy W pattern was what was used by the Americans during WWII. It was called a parallel sheaf. Today we use a circular sheaf with 100M radius generated by the FDC's computer.

Hope that adds something to the discussion.

Out here....

[Bullethead]

Jaeger7 said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still maintain that at the ranges used most often for CM battles it would be hard to find an obstruction that would totally block the smoke from a normal HE round.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. And I think CM does also, as shown in the way the MPI always ends up on the DMPI even for blind FOs. That wouldn't happen unless the FO could see the spotting rounds. But it takes them longer because they can't see the actual burst but have to wait for the column of smoke/dust to rise above the LOS block. And because this will be some variable after the splash time, recognizing the spotting round is a bit more difficult. Hence the longer time for the spotting process. At least that's how I rationalize it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a sidelight to your other point about lots of smoke and dust being kicked up..this is not modeled in CM at all. After about four rounds of HE in any one area LOS through that area would be completely obscured until the smoke cleared. The more volleys fired over several minutes and you would have a complete LOS obstruction that would persist for several minutes after the last volley was fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agreed. This is another things that's been bothering me, but I didn't put it on my Wish List because I didn't want to hit BTS with too much stuff at once. Same for tweaking impact patterns.

Anyway, it would be nice if this huge cloud of LOS blockage from an FFE was actually modeled in CM. Nobody should be able to see through this area for some time. So an HE bombardment should not only give you HE damage, but also produce something like the present "snowball" smoke mission at the same time. This would pacify those who'd whine about my suggested restrictions on real smokescreens as outlined in my original post.

BTW, this is another reason for needing a wider FFE "adjustment" area, because in real life the FO can't see anything in the small area presently provided by CM. So he shouldn't know if the enemy has moved over a few steps.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AS far as I know the lazy W pattern was what was used by the Americans during WWII. It was called a parallel sheaf.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could well be, at least in some periods. But I'm pretty sure they were using a straight line like today's by the end of the war.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-24-2000).]

[elementalwarre]

great stuff! anyone at BTS reading this?

the numbers refer to the summary list below. here goes, questions and comments:

- re 7, adjusting FFE: why is 200-300m out from the target not targetable? or did i misinterpret?

- IMHO 10, no delay for changing target, is a bug fix, not a suggestion. bullethead, you're almost too polite

- re 11, illume rounds - yes! if BTS adds these, i'll happily live with the visual abstraction suggested. it also makes trip flares and flare pistols possible sooner (hey, i can hope )

- these would be changes in a CM patch, thus the limited, abstracted graphics. right? just ensuring that's the only reason for the graphics suggested

here's what i understand the suggestions are:

bullethead's suggestions:

1. track FO ammo by type and quantity

2. add mechanical time HE, illumination, and white phosphorus rounds

3. linear 200m x 100m impact patterns at any angle

4. linear smokescreen at any angle

5. smokescreen in roughly twice the time of HE fire mission

6. set FFE duration by number of salvos, not by turn

7. adjust FFE by 100m increments to anywhere within 200m of target. 200-300m cylinder around target cannot be targeted. 300+m from target is new target

8. scenario designer can specify number of guns per spotter

9. create TRPs much like ambush markers. possible on any original target but not on adjusted target

10. no delay due to changing FO target more than once

11. add illumination rounds. represent effect as ground marker. units within X radius have LOS as if dawn/dusk and are visible by any unit with clear LOS. some additional delay before shot

other people's suggestions:

12. scenario designer specifies artillery firing direction. affects scatter pattern

13. specify number of guns per mission

14. shellburst effect should be more visible in most cases

15. more consistent shot pattern for unobserved targets

16. shot patterns should follow national battery layouts

17. LOS blocked by shellbursts in some terrain/ground conditions

[chrisl]

I've got an additional question (or two) that just came up. In a challenge against Goanna I bought at least one 14" FO (he knows this now, as it just clobbered a few platoons). In the First full salvo, there were 3 groundbursts and 1 treeburst. I was surprised by the treeburst-- would the naval arty do that?

Also, early in the game I wasn't watching the time carefully enough and (while trying to keep the targeting delay down) accidentally let fly with a 14" spotting round. Much later (15 minutes), when I really wanted the full barrage, I got the whole 4 rounds at once, no spotting round. Another time, when I was testing the stuff, I got two spotting rounds together. Is there some method to this, or are the Navy guys just a little unpredictable?

btw, the stuff is awesome to watch.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl:

...I bought at least one 14" FO (he knows this now, as it just clobbered a few platoons). In the First full salvo, there were 3 groundbursts and 1 treeburst. I was surprised by the treeburst-- would the naval arty do that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. At a guess, if it was a high capacity round with an instantaneous nose fuse it might very well. Thing is, I don't know what the BBs were shooting at that particular time and place.

Michael

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

Changing your mind in the orders phase - yes, yes, yes. This is damn annoying, it is inconsistent with all other orders issued in the orders phase (which can be changed/edited without penalty), and there's no compelling reality-based argument for it. artificial!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Annoying yes, but consistent.

If you cancel a normal fire order from a tank, and reissue it, the next

round will be considered the first, accuracy-wise. Same with movement,

cancel and reissue, you get a pause.

Not that I wouldn't hate the lack of undo.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?