Arty spotter suppression

[SenorBeef]

I'll keep this one simple. Why do arty spotters lose their target when being suppressed?

[Stixx]

Well this is just a quess but i would say it would be hard to direct an artillery strike when you have your head buried in a fox hole.

[Sock Monkey]

Well, presumably the spotter already has the artillery target set pretty well and his further direction shouldn't be neccessary unless he wants to adjust fire.

As far as the game goes, though, this is likely just another example of the way (be it for gameplay or simplicity) that BTS modeled the way spotters work, like the fact that a barrage stops if the spotter is killed. [This is the point where it seems to be obligatory on this board to suggest you do a search because this topic has been talked to death, etc. etc. etc.] This is the sort of arty spotter issue (along with things like relative spotting) that it would be neat to see addressed in CMII.

[citizen]

Let's hope that rounds will still be incoming when spotters are suppressed in CM:B2B. Well, at least for the Russians.

Currently, we are to believe that the spotters are in second by second contact with their batteries. The shells stop when that constant chatter stops (spotter suppressed or killed). The batteries wouldn't want a few shells landing on friendlies, after all.

We know that Russian communications were not this good and there is some evidence that the Russians weren't above shooting at their own troops.

Please BTS, let the Russian shells fall at least for the remainder of the 60 seconds.

Citizen

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sock Monkey:

Well, presumably the spotter already has the artillery target set pretty well and his further direction shouldn't be neccessary unless he wants to adjust fire.

As far as the game goes, though, this is likely just another example of the way (be it for gameplay or simplicity) that BTS modeled the way spotters work, like the fact that a barrage stops if the spotter is killed. [This is the point where it seems to be obligatory on this board to suggest you do a search because this topic has been talked to death, etc. etc. etc.] This is the sort of arty spotter issue (along with things like relative spotting) that it would be neat to see addressed in CMII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why its a CMII matter. It would be quite simple, I'd imagine, to exempt FOs from losing their target under morale stress. Alot of the arty problems with CM would be relatively easy, at least, from an amateur programmers outside perspective, to fix with some rigging.

[Jumbo]

Even if this has been talked about, there should be nothing wrong about talking some more.

I had a 75mm spotter yesterday target an area for an interminably long time (6+ minutes). The turn that the artillery finally came, he "took cover" due to some incoming small arms near him. Only one artillery round fell begore it stopped completely. I tried to get him to re-target the same place and it another interminably long time. The off-map guns presumably didn't even move. The spotter didn't tell them to be moved.

Is it modelled in CM that the spotter tells the guns to stop firing because he has to duck??? If so, then that does not make sense, IMHO. He called the artillery in for a reason. I can't see that reason changing just because he had to take cover. There must be some real artillery spotters that know.

Maybe a cancel fire should order be inserted and that the artillery not stop unless ordered to stop or out of ammo. Its just an idea.

With all due respect to everyone, SenorBeef is right. This really should be fixed.

[Mlapanzer]

Try keeping your spotters out of the line of fire. The whole arty. spotter routine is kind of abstract anyway.

[Scott B]

There is some basis for it, but I think there is a problem in the system as it currently stands.

Figure your observer has LOS to a target and calls for an adjust fire mission-- one where his firing battery fires a single round for that observer to make a correction from before the entire battery fires.

If he's suppressed while the adjusting round lands, he can't make an adjustment and can't therefore make the necessary corrections for a call for fire. He would therefore need to ask for a subsequent adjustment mission, which essentially starts the system over and wastes a round.

If he's suppressed after the adjusting round lands, he can already have called for the fire for effect (FFE) mission, in which case, shooting him dead on the spot shouldn't stop the mission, only subsequent ones. The mission would consist of a number of salvos, based on the observer's instructions, and then the firing battery would stop to wait for further instructions.

In no circumstances would an artillery unit continue to fire unobserved without instructions to do so-- it's an unnecessary risk to friendly troops to fire blindly without an observer able to tell them to stop.

The observer is very powerful because the artillery does what he tells them to; however, there are a few problems... I'd prefer to see observers able to adjust fire into areas that they do not have LOS to, and I'd like to see TRPs purchaseable for an attacker as well; maybe make it bought from the artillery points instead of the fortification points-- nobody deliberately attacks anything with artillery support without planning a few targets first...

Scott B.

[Viceroy]

I think the whole point is about gameplay If they don't limit the spotters and mortars in some way the whole game would only revolve around art/FO's. So that's why FWIH that BTS decided to place some artificial constraints on the FO's.

I like the balance as it is now. Calling in a good fire mission on a group of troops in a woods/pines is deeply satisfying ..... I know I'm kind of sick But I wouldn't like art to become any more powerful in the game.

[SenorBeef]

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

I think the whole point is about gameplay If they don't limit the spotters and mortars in some way the whole game would only revolve around art/FO's. So that's why FWIH that BTS decided to place some artificial constraints on the FO's.

I like the balance as it is now. Calling in a good fire mission on a group of troops in a woods/pines is deeply satisfying ..... I know I'm kind of sick But I wouldn't like art to become any more powerful in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a matter of artificially restricting some part of the game issues of balance, and thats bleh territory. I don't think having spotters artificially crippled in this matter is really all that good for gameplay, not enough to be worth artificially cripple FOs. I think this might simply be a case of any unit with an area fire command stopping firing once its been sufficiently suppressed (does that happen?), if so, then they simply used the same suppression model on FOs, not bothering to implement it seperately, or turn it off.

In regards to adjusting fire, I agree to an extent. You shouldn't be able to easily adjust fire under heavy suppresion, however, I'd imagine the FO could still say "Previous target, FFE" if he was in the middle of an adjustment process and came under heavy fire. That wasn't even the case here, of course, so thats immaterial for this particular problem.

[Dr. Brian]

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

Even if this has been talked about, there should be nothing wrong about talking some more.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. This is a good issue to talk about. A lot of people haven't seen it before, as well, like me.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

[Fred]

SenorBeef has a point here.

But practically, I never had too much problems with it.

I usually keep my spotters out of harms way and, at least since v. 1.12, the AI is MUCH smarter with its own spotters (they don't lead attacks anymore)

It's a long way back when I had one of my spotter teams KIA or killed one of the AIs spotter teams.

But, AFAIK, we have some real-life arty spotters here on the board, and maybe they like to comment?

Fred

[Stalins Organ]

as a Recce Platoon Rifleman I occasionally had cause to call in "nominal" mortar fire.

All i remember about it is that you had to provide feedback to the arillery for aiming purposes until you told them to fire for effect - up to that point they weer firing at your direction (left a bit, up a bit, etc), so if you put your head down they wouldn't shoot.

[Michael Emrys]

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

I think this might simply be a case of any unit with an area fire command stopping firing once its been sufficiently suppressed (does that happen?), if so, then they simply used the same suppression model on FOs, not bothering to implement it seperately, or turn it off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're right.

Michael