why cant morters fire without line of sight?

[Tero]

They can now fire under HQ LOS. Would it be too unrealistic to have the onboard mortars fire using the FO's as spotters ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

They can now fire under HQ LOS. Would it be too unrealistic to have the onboard mortars fire using the FO's as spotters ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have no problem with that.

[MoatnGator]

Just my 2 cents...

When smoke was used, Machine guns already had targets set as in night fire. So whether smoke or night, you could still fire for effect along probable avenues of approach. The inability to fire into smoke is not there for tactical reasons, it is there b/c of game limitations. A great game, but obviously restircted to some degree.

[CMplayer]

Would it be unrealistic to simply separate spotters from the ordinance they call in? What I mean is that you purchase fire missions, and you purchase spotters, and then any spotter can call in any kind of fire missions (even directing fire from on board mortars, perhaps, if they haven't moved from their initial setup position)

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Andreas]

Well, FOOs for field arty and mortars were different, AFAIK. At least in the Commonwealth they had different spotters for 4.2" and Field Rgts, and 3" mortars were organic at BN level, and controlled in another way I don't understand, while 2" mortars were under direct command of the platoon commander, and therefore totally out of the loop. So I think to have a one spotter controls all would be even more unrealistic, and should affect the price for the FOO team. Would be a weird abstraction really...

[CMplayer]

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

Well, FOOs for field arty and mortars were different, AFAIK.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I'm convinced, thx. Would it be an equally weird abstraction to allow HQ's to spot for some kinds of fire missions?(such as medium mortars which are 'closer' to the HQ in organizational level)

And still...suppose you purchase 2 155 spotters for example. One team gets bushwhacked. Dead. Isn't that a case where the other team could just as well call in the dead team's ammo (in RL) ?

And while I'm at it, why can't I put 10 sharpshooters in a halftrack????!!!!???!!!!!!

Do sumfink!

[Andreas]

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

Okay, I'm convinced, thx. Would it be an equally weird abstraction to allow HQ's to spot for some kinds of fire missions?(such as medium mortars which are 'closer' to the HQ in organizational level)

And still...suppose you purchase 2 155 spotters for example. One team gets bushwhacked. Dead. Isn't that a case where the other team could just as well call in the dead team's ammo (in RL) ?

And while I'm at it, why can't I put 10 sharpshooters in a halftrack????!!!!???!!!!!!

Do sumfink!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, it is really just my opinion. YMMV, as they say. It is weirdly abstracted to a degree, and yep, I never heard of 3" FOOs either, but hey, I got used to it, and I need my medication anyway, so there.

[gunnergoz]

My 25cents worth:

CMBO basically models mortars in two flavors: (1) the mortar team with weapon and (2) the FO for a remote mortar team.

The idea seems to be that the team with weapon present on the battlefield is ususally representative of front-line direct-fire use of mortars in direct support. The remote team represented by the FO is better prepared for sustained fire, perhaps from an improved position with access to more ammo.

It makes sense to me to represent mortars this way. The smaller 50 and 60mm mortars and 2" jobs basically are front-line, platoon and company support by direct fire weapons. The 81mm/3" and larger mortars were typically controlled at battalion level farther back and had a larger issue of ammo stocked than mortars being carried into the front line.

I'm no mortarman, but it seems reasonable to me that for a man-packed team to set up a mortar in the field, lay out the reference lines and then fire for effect blindly (i.e. by map or radioed coordinates) is a bit too much to expect within the time span of a 30-minute scenario.

If CMBO were designed to portray 1-3 hour battles, then I'd agree that there was more that could be done to represent this indirect fire capability, because even man-packed teams would have time to prepare for indirect fire in such a time span.

[StellarRat]

I read an account of the fighting in Okinawa where a totally untrained infantryman called in 155 fire and destroyed a whole Japanese company. This only took a few minutes. Basically the arty commander fired about 1 mile long at first just to make sure he didn't hit friendlies then they walked it back based on the infantryman's radio direction until it was right on target. I guess I'm saying that at least for American units it should be possible to call in fire with someone other than an FO (with substantial time and accuracy penalties at first.)

[Michael Emrys]

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

I guess I'm saying that at least for American units it should be possible to call in fire with someone other than an FO (with substantial time and accuracy penalties at first.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds about right. There seems to be some evidence that has surfaced on the board lately that would support at least having platoon leaders and up able to call in fire. I think the idea that it would take them longer to get accurate fire is sound. I imagine the Brits/Commonwealth were capable of this as well and perhaps the Germans also. Not sure though that I would extend this to other nationalities until I see some evidence on the subject.

Michael

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

And while I'm at it, why can't I put 10 sharpshooters in a halftrack????!!!!???!!!!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn it! You've exposed your secret weapons prior to the Aegean Challenge ("Chaos in the Cyclades") once again. Last time it was the flamethrowers; this time it's hordes of conscript sharpshooters in 251/1s... Even so, this will not prevent me from killing your boys with a clear conscience.

BTW, intriguing concept - one FO team calling down coordinates using the dead team's battery... maybe that's too much to ask for (within 30 minutes) and I don't know about historical accuracy - but it sounds feasible.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

BTW, intriguing concept - one FO team calling down coordinates using the dead team's battery... maybe that's too much to ask for (within 30 minutes) and I don't know about historical accuracy - but it sounds feasible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't think of anything against it historically since, if an FO had a hot target and nothing else in the vicinity was cooking, he could call in every battery and battalion within range. Chalk this one up to difficulty in programming it, I suppose. BTS had to come up with some way to ration how much arty was available to a player in a workable format. Maybe they can work out a way for a live FO to take over a deceased's battery. Maybe they will eventually come up with an entirely different way to regulate usage. Who knows?

Michael

[Slapdragon]

A major difference in artillery fire was how many radios, wire, and phones were in soldiers hands, and how many soldiers were assigned to create more versatile communications systems by staffing more and bigger phone, radio, and com nets. Also the quality of the radios and phones were an issue. Different countries, even allies, had different levels of capability in this, most an expression of how much wealth was put into the division and corps tail to support the Battalion and Company teeth. CM simulates this by increasing or decreasing time to call barrage. In terms of game engine, unlike the original squad leader, it chose the European system instead of the American system of artillery direction as the model. In SL -- any leader in possesion of a working phone or radio could call in any artillery available. In CM, dedicated observers act as the directors for artillery fire.

This of course was an abstraction, and could be better, but that would have to ask the question of how good were communications in a unit at a certian momemt. All armies could after a fashion have distributed artillery barrage calling, and some did in certian instances. And every Army could have communications so disrupted that no one, not even special tasked FOs with attached wire teams, were able to call indirect fire. Coding this would have been more difficult to do, plus reseach on the communicaton variable is harder to find. So it seems like it was simplified to ease designing efforts a bit.

[chrisl]

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

So it seems like it was simplified to ease designing efforts a bit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to keep the game from becoming "Arty Mission".

If you allowed for the amount of control a dedicated observer might really have, and the number of batteries available to hit a juicy target, the typical match might be a US company against a german battalion. The company wanders around a bit, after being shot at they call in a couple hours worth of arty from a zillion batteries, and then walk in to round up the soon to be prisoners who are looking for their teeth.

[CMplayer]

To get back to the original question, how about this idea:

On board mortars could area fire anywhere within, say, 20-30 meters of where they have LOS. That way they could plonk shells 'just over the ridge' or 'just behind the hedgerow', or 'a little farther into the forest', but it would be based on a tiny adjust from where they can see, rather than a complicated coordinate system.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

Damn it! You've exposed your secret weapons prior to the Aegean Challenge ("Chaos in the Cyclades") once again. Last time it was the flamethrowers; this time it's hordes of conscript sharpshooters in 251/1s... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you're the one designing the scenario how could I be planning a secret weapon? My actual secret weapon is nothing other than my revered mom. She's brilliant. She works at one of those think tanks in California that does CIA contracts 'n stuff. I always consult her before turns.

[Michael Emrys]

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

To get back to the original question, how about this idea:

On board mortars could area fire anywhere within, say, 20-30 meters of where they have LOS. That way they could plonk shells 'just over the ridge' or 'just behind the hedgerow', or 'a little farther into the forest', but it would be based on a tiny adjust from where they can see, rather than a complicated coordinate system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. That's one of the better suggestions I believe I've seen. Nice work, CM!

:cool:

Michael

[CMplayer]

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

I read an account of the fighting in Okinawa where a totally untrained infantryman called in 155 fire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you calling a marine, a United States Marine a totally untrained infantryman? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, I'll let that one pass...this time.

But the account you gave is really fascinating. It reminds me of stories like the pilot and copilot get heartattacks and a 14 yr old kid who's played a lot of flight sims lands the airbus with radio support. Danger bringing out the hero in people and all that. It must've been pretty hot if a vanilla rifleman was calling in 155's. Good thinking on the part of the battery commander, to overshoot long and walk back. I'll bet he also had to talk calmly and reassuringly to that boy he had in the radio like a panicked 911 call. Sometimes a short anecdote, like yours, brings up these intense images...I guess they come from old war movies but it's almost scary how vivid they can be.

[CMplayer]

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

So it seems like it was simplified to ease designing efforts a bit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the major limiting factor probably being time, there's just not enough time for every aspect of the game to get thorough attention.

I still think that separating FO's from the artillery would be a good basic design principle which would allow for gradual further elaboration of the system later (as time permits)

You'd click on an FO and get up a window with all available arty for it to order missions from (kind of like the tac ops arty window perhaps) but the ammo isn't the 'property' of that particular FO. A similar window could be available to some or all HQ's. (a particular FO or HQ might only have access to a subset of the total purchased arty support) All kinds of paramaters could be tweakable to simulate the various communications issues you are talking about.

It would be a neat platform for experimentation, whereas having a fixed FO/battery unit is a sort of a dead end. There's not much potential for gradual improvement of that cludge (not to clank on BTS cause they needed to get out a playable product, which they succeeded eminently with)

[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

You'd click on an FO and get up a window with all available arty for it to order missions from (kind of like the tac ops arty window perhaps) but the ammo isn't the 'property' of that particular FO. A similar window could be available to some or all HQ's. (a particular FO or HQ might only have access to a subset of the total purchased arty support) All kinds of paramaters could be tweakable to simulate the various communications issues you are talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooo, I like this! You're on a roll tonight, CM!

Michael

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Ooooo, I like this! You're on a roll tonight, CM!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks...maybe I should buy some stocks, quick. (it's day here in Sw.)

[Tero]

Separating the FO's from specific, dedicated ordinance would be realistic. If the battle was "planned" it would have involved an artillery fire plan (including targets, positions, timetable if applicable etc) to integrate the artillery into the overall mission plan. In an unnamed era army fighting near the arctic region at least.

Integrating on-map assets into the fireplan depends on the fire plan, organization and communications network.

In CM terms that could perhaps translate into integrated company level FO teams (platoons ?) while the actual off map assets would be bought separately. An alterated cost structure in the firing element would deal with the "gamey" applications and on-map assets could be sold by the battery instead of single guns as they are now.

[Andreas]

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

To get back to the original question, how about this idea:

On board mortars could area fire anywhere within, say, 20-30 meters of where they have LOS. That way they could plonk shells 'just over the ridge' or 'just behind the hedgerow', or 'a little farther into the forest', but it would be based on a tiny adjust from where they can see, rather than a complicated coordinate system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this is a nice suggestion, it will only be possible to do that with relative spotting - the current Borg model would lead to it being abused, because you could use a routed, fleeing truck-driver 600m away from the mortar who lost one leg and is carrying his buddy to spot for the mortar crew.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

Since you're the one designing the scenario how could I be planning a secret weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errrr...Factoring in the...Ummm...Conversely, the model illustrates...ahhhhh...if one considers the... yes...astute observation, my dear Arch-Nemesis...if only it were that simple.

My operatives in Jakarta have indicated your mother's agents were photographed leaving the Trader Vic's restaurant in Kabul with members of the Taliban's cyber-terrorism wing. Microfiche discovered in an order of "Crab Rangoon" suggests your mother tried to hack into my hard drive and purchase these weapons without my knowledge. It seems you are even more ruthless than I'd imagined...

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

I still think that separating FO's from the artillery would be a good basic design principle which would allow for gradual further elaboration of the system later (as time permits)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite agree. More flexible application of FOs would really enhance the game, i feel. Perhaps I'm entirely wrong, but I thought a forward observer with a functional radio (who has excellent LOS to critical points in a battle) would not just become useless after his "ammo allocation" dries up - with initial delays he'd be able to call in strikes for multiple batteries (provided the appropriate arty was available, or, purchased in CM terms).

2 shiny copper pennies...