Top Ten Reasons Artillery is Poorly Modelled

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

The phoneline trick can be used. But IF it can not be used THEN it does boil down to the topographical data the force has at its disposal. If you have an accurate 1:20 000 map and you are certain where your mortars are set up you do not need to register.

Would be a bit too much [iF] [THEN]/[AND] in there for my liking, considering you are chucking TNT about in close proximity to your Kameraden. But maybe I am just not Finnish enough?

Let's not even start on the availability of accurate 1:20k maps in Russia, shall we? When 12.PD advanced towards Tikhvin in late 1941, they came across a railway line (!) that was not on their maps, which they no doubt found slightly disconcerting, and worth mentioning in the divisional history.

[ February 10, 2003, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Would be a bit too much [iF] [THEN]/[AND] in there for my liking, considering you are chucking TNT about in close proximity to your Kameraden. But maybe I am just not Finnish enough?

Well, there are stories about the German front line soldiers wondering how the Finnish troops were not being ordered to take cover in their dug outs when the Finnish artillery was firing strikes a couple of hundred meters from their positions. Apparently the German SOP was to order their troops to take cover when friendly artillery was firing at targets at or near danger-close distance.

Or that the German troops specifically requested Finnish artillery should fire the missions which would fall near their own positions.

Or how the Germans wondered how on earth the Finnish FO's would order fire missions to targets 100 meters from friendly positions without ranging or registering shots.

Let's not even start on the availability of accurate 1:20k maps in Russia, shall we?

OK. But I hope you do agree that historical, proven availability of such maps should not be considered to be trivial, incidental or anomalous when speaking about the mechanics of the artillery procedures.

BTW: do you have anything on the topographical service of the German army in your fathers notes ? I'd be most interested to read up on it.

When 12.PD advanced towards Tikhvin in late 1941, they came across a railway line (!) that was not on their maps, which they no doubt found slightly disconcerting, and worth mentioning in the divisional history.

What can I say, the Finnish Army topographical service seems to have been far better than the German one.

It would be interesting to compare for example Fremde Heer Ost data they accumulated with the maps available to the troops. I can not believe they did not mount any recce flights and I'd like to know how long it did take for the data (including topographical data) to seep through down to the troops.

[ February 10, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Mortars are WORTHLESS in CMBO and CMBB, especially

mortar HTs, since you have to have them next to

a command unit that has LOS to the target....

Just a quick note: on-board mortars are the only option, if you want to take out field guns with precision and efficiency.

[PiggDogg]

Off-map mortars that can be on-map (81s & 82s) and 50s are substantially better than their off-map counterparts. (Yep, 50s have no off-map counterparts.)

First, those mortars must be used in grand batteries, that is 4, 5, 6, or more tubes, plus a spotting leader. Penny packet use of these on-mortars is not effective.

Second, on-map mortars are more accurate than their off-map counterparts.

Third, on-map mortars have a near instantaneous response time compared to their off-map courterparts' lonnnnnng time on target time.

On-map mortars in grand batteries can only hit one area in a manner similar to off-map mortars. Indeed, the off-map mortars' quantity of smoke shells and cheaper cost per shell are off-map mortars' only real advantage.

In short, except for off-map mortars' smoke or as part of a cheap infantry battalion, on-map mortars are much more effective than their off-map brothers.

Cheers, Richard

[ February 11, 2003, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

Organised counter-attacks, maybe? That was certainly one of the key uses that the British put the RA to.

This was a common practice for all nations as far as I know. Germans had a terrible time of it because of decentralized artillery assets though.

Describing artillery as ‘crushing’ anything indicates a fairly basic misunderstanding of what artillery can – and more importantly can’t - do.

Nope. What your comment indicates is that you have a narrow idea of what "crushing" means, and an even narrower idea of our understanding of artillery.

CRUSH, as I intended it, means destroying the capacity of the enemy to resist in a coherent manner using a sudden and overwhelming source of force. In my two examples, artillery. I have been a student of military history for most of my life so I am perfectly aware that artillery's main effect is disruption/suppression. However, when used en mas it is also a tremendous source of destruction of infrastructure, defensive emplacements, weapons, vehicles, communications, supplies, and of course life (not just Human).

Artillery is great for suppression, but not so great at destruction of the enemy (see: The Somme).

US casualty statistics indicate that nearly 75% of casualties caused in WWII were the result of shell splinters. Obviously suppression isn't the only thing artillery (which includes mortars) is good for.

What I’m uncomfortable with, though, is having the suppression/neutralisation capability of artillery misunderstood.

No misunderstanding here. You should know better. I mean, how many discussions of artillery have I had with you and others over the last 3 years?

Suppression is – or should be – the prime goal of field artillery (i.e. 25-pr., 105mm, 76.2mm in the various armies). As it stands, this isn’t overly well modelled, IMHO. (I'm not referring to the blast values here)

I don't agree with this statement any more than I agree with the previous one that mortars are "useless".

A good fireplan isn’t a stand-alone entity, which you seem to regard it as with this comment:

sigh... there you go again. Reading WAY too much into a small comment and disregarding everything you should know about our level of understanding regarding artillery....

Artillery is part of the combined arms battle, and treating it as something separate does it a major disservice.

How is artillery treated as something seperate? I know I always use it in conjunction with the other arms.

Also, I believe the 8th Airforce, rather than 1st Army artillery was mostly responsible for the Cobra carnage

On the American side Yes, airpower was a significant factor in certain sectors but artillery was used in large numbers in very well coordinated fireplans. However, insert some other operation in for Cobra if you disagree with that example.

The strat bombing example seems a little out of left field I understand the reference, but you seem to have taken it to a rather illogical extreme. The focus comment is certainly appropriate, I guess where people differ is where that focus should be centred or aimed (horses anyone? )

When someone makes a statement that is out of context, the best way to highlight it is to toss out another example that is equal or more out of context but along the same logical lines. Hence my using strategic bombing to highlight why operational use of artillery for interdication is not relevant to CM's scale.

Yes, I’ve been fiddling about with this recently. One can indeed put together quite a nice fireplan with CMBB, using a combination of TRPs (not strictly necessary, but they do help with visualtisation), multiple FOs, and the Turn 1 barrage function. However, this method is really not suitable for QBs.

QBs were not designed to be substitutes for battles made in the Editor. Intensive use of artillery, airpower, defensive elements, etc. is simply too difficult to manage using an on the fly purchasing system. Therefore we did not expend much energy in that direction.

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

…One can argue how much effect that has on a typical CMBB battle though. I would argue it is quite small…

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

Indeed one can argue. I would argue that it depends on the player, and that in the right hands the effect would be quite large.

Sure, just as the correct use of a single tank can change a game dramtically. That is such a basic point that I didn't even think someone would read it that way. You apparently misunderstood completely what I meant, further evidenced by...

quote:

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

For example, I am playing a battle right now where little artillery is available and LOS is highly restricted. Therefore, this has little to no impact on the battle I am playing.

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

I would posit that your example has more to do with the limitations of the artillery model as it currently stands than any real shortcomings of artillery.

My point was that the "typical" (= average) battle at CM's scale worthy of simulation did not hinge on artillery modeling in REAL LIFE because it was cronically short on the Eastern Front, just like tanks were. In the battle I mentioned artillery would not realistically be very effective. Forest battles on the move were not where artillery shone in the real war any more than in CMBB. And since paltry artillery assets are the only thing available (which is very realistic), there again it underscores how important artillery is for this battle. Now, would I mind a couple batteries of heavy artillery to pound the living bejezus out of some suspected enemy positions before investing my infantry? Sure, but it isn't available and wouldn't be all that practical to use in any case. That is realistic.

I won’t argue with your order of priority. What I would question is the % of time spent on each. To me it seems that too much emphasis was given to armour.

I would say most of the game development was on infantry. Especially for CMBB. Graphics... absolutely VEHICLES (of all flavors). Artillery was a runner up to armor for sure.

Remember, infantry in CM is not just a bunch of stickfigures with simplistic weapons. There are a ton of orders with wildly different effects. And the TacAI... oh... I don't even want to remember how much time was invested in this True, the vehicle stuff wasn't just thrown together, but I think people woefully underestimate how much time was put into infantry compared to vehicles. Artillery was, however, certainly third.

This skewing of emphasis shows up in lots of ways, but the most noticeable is in the number of AFV and vehicle models, and their corresponding accuracy.

I can assure you that probably 2-3 times as much man hours were spent on infantry data than vehicle data. Vehicle data, the basic stuff at least, was pretty easy to get and enter into the game. Finding out what the composition of a 1941 Hungarian Rifle Squad was... now there was some painful research!

It also shows in the variety of orders available for armour.

Check the game again. Infantry has about the same number of orders than vehicles do. But, that is a simplistic check. I know that the behavior associated with the infantry orders was more difficult to achieve than the vehicle ones. Especially for CMBB where most of the effort was put into the new infantry orders while the vehicle ones pretty much were a piece of cake.

My point is that perhaps some of that ‘armour model time budget’ could have been shifted to the ‘artillery model time budget’, leaving us with, for example, fewer or less detailed tank models, but a more detailed artillery module.

You don't understand the development process. Adding tank models took barely any of Charles' time. That means he effectively wasn't doing much of anything avehicle reatled. But changing the way artillery worked? All in Chalres' court. Leaving out a couple of BT tanks would not have saved any of Charles' time and therefore had no impact on ANYTHING which needed his time, including artillery.

Oh, okay – I will argue with your order: where do the engineers come in?

Dead last. They are specialist troops which perform most of their specialized functions outside of what we intended CM to be. Compared with getting MG suppresion working better than CMBO, for example, detailed mine clearing and other such specialized functions should be dead last. Engineers are horribly overused by CM players, which makes their "shortcomings" unfairly seen. Also, most gamers haven't a clue how much time it took engineers to do things in real life. Go back in the depths of postings and see just how badly infomed most people are when it comes to what engineers could, and could not, do within the context of a CM battle.

We could go backwards and forwards on this one all day. I would suggest that it would depend on the nationality and the date. For example, early in the war the British almost penny-packeted themselves completely out of Africa. However, from mid-to-late 1942 onwards concentration became common. They still had the ability to fire by battery, or even single guns if required, but they now had the guns, ammunition, and most importantly the experience to know that massing fire was the best and most efficient way to get results. I use the word ‘efficient’ deliberately – mass fire, if done properly, gets better results while using less ammo overall and tying up the guns on any given mission for less overall time.

But one can simulate Battalion fire in CMBO and CMBB. Simply purchase the correct number and mix of FOs and bingo... you have it right there. Perhaps not realistic in terms of the method for its employment (i.e. not just a single FO), but the game results will be spot on if used correctly.

“… more often than not …”? Got a source for that?

No, but when I read AARs of CM sized battles I do not see mention of curtains of artillery falling down upon the hapless positions of an enemy platoon. Which brings me to...

Incidentally – there is another reason for firing by battery: the target-type only needs a battery to engage it.

Correct. I did not intend to disregard the positive, practical reason for firing battery only. If there is a troublesome enemy platoon, and your artillery Battalion is short on either rounds or time for missions, is it really necessary to bring 3-4 batteries down on it when there are probably other things that the artillery could be used for? As can be easily demonstrated in CM, a good dose of one battery is generally enough to have an effect.

Ok, but what about attack and assault? The attacker absolutely should be able to purchase TRPs.

Charles has refused to do this each of the 100 times it was asked for. I suspect there is some code reason for his dismissal of this option because I (and the other 99 people) agree with you here This is probably the only thing in/not in CMBB that I disagree with Charles over. But he is the master of the code, so his word is final.

Then again, Charles’ figure could refer to the opening round of adjustment. A 250m error there I would find quite believable, if not on the low-side.

Correct, and correct.

Something that both CMBO and CMBB overlook is the ability to infer unseen terrain from what can be seen. For example, imagine a ripe wheatfield extending in front of me for about 300m, then the ground rises up to a ridge. In Real Life™ I would be able to call down an accurate mission anywhere within that field. This is because I could see the explosion of the round landing, and infer where it landed by its relation to me, the ridge, and any previous rounds of adjustment.

Correct. LOS is too restrictive when it comes to spotting for artillery. Obviously something that will be improved later on. The issue with the code now is that there is NO way to figure out if the FO can "infer" or not since LOS being blocked by that gentle slope is no different than it being blocked by a 50m cliff.

Another option is to use smoke in adjustment. The plume of smoke rise above tall LOS obstacles, alowing adjustment to proceed more or less normally.

Depends on the lay of the terrain and is more adjustable Left/Right rather than the range I should think.

And, for cases where visibility truly sux0r, FOs can use sound adjustment.

For preregistering, I agree. During the din of battle? I would think this would be extremely difficult to do.

Now, I’m not suggesting that sound or smoke ranging should necessarily be included in CM. What I am suggesting is that CM FOs behave like they are still in kindergarten, while their armoured and infantry CM brethren act like they have graduated from university.

Matter of opinion, obviously.

But Steve – the bar is set so low! Surely you aren’t happy with just being above average

We aren't, which is why the engine rewrite will have a LOT more detailed artillery. The thing is the bar was set so horribly low for EVERYTHING. Graphics, sound, user interface, feature range, completeness, accuracy of data, etc. Note I did not mention infantry and armor simulation in this previous line. I did that to underscore that CM is a game of many parts. Infantry, armor, artillery, and airpower are just componants of that game. We had to spend time making the whole enchilada, and if someone added up all the time we spent... the wrappings took a LOT more time than the filling This is typical for any game, so please remember that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To sum up the above

I think Jon agrees with me that CM's artillery, while not on a par with infantry and vehicles, is generally realistic. Not to say their aren't shortcomings, limitations, imperfections, etc... but that the original poster's claim of it being "poor" was at best a tad bit overstated.

Also, since I did not see Jon refuting my counter points (for the most part) to X-00's orginal post, I can only assume that he thinks those points were (as I do) largely misplaced. Scale appears to be the major reason.

If I am wrong to say the above, I am sure Jon will say so

Oh... and Tero... I didn't feel like pounding my head against the keyboard for the next 5 days in a running tit-for-tat blindly überfinn debate with you. It used to be mildly entertaining, but I really have found it to be a waste of time when you have your überfinn hackles up. However, I can't let this one slip by:

What can I say, the Finnish Army topographical service seems to have been far better than the German one.

Ah... so the Finnish Army had great 1:20k maps covering all of Russia, not just Finnland and the areas taken from in in the Winter War? Gee... wonder why the German's didn't just borrow the übermaps from them?

I bet German topo maps of their own territory were on a par with anything the Finns had. Just a hunch.

Steve

P.S. Your question of who the mortar man was expected, as was your predictable response. Thankfully other Finns can get their viewpoint accross, from the Finnish perspective, without coming off like a blind nationalist.

[A.E.B]

puff...puff

Is it to late to add that the effectiness of artillery was greatly reduced by heavy snow. The shells burrow down and the blanket of snow absorbs a good deal of the blast.

Regards

A.E.B

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah... so the Finnish Army had great 1:20k maps covering all of Russia, not just Finnland and the areas taken from in in the Winter War? Gee... wonder why the German's didn't just borrow the übermaps from them?

This is propably the most inane respond from you I have ever seen.

It is totally irrelevant to what extent the Finnish topographical service was mapping the previously uncharted territories. Practically the entire national service was built up to service the Finnish army (artillery). I assume the German Army topographical service was built up to service the German army. Which fulfilled its task better ? The Finnish artillery was not too happy about the instant maps they got within 48 hours of the recce flight. But they were accurate enough for fire missions as per the procedures of the Finnish artillery. And they were most certainly accurate enough for the use of the infantry.

The inaccuracy of the German maps is legendary, especially in the East. IIRC they used the Michelin maps during their campaign in the West when they lacked proper maps. There were no Michelin maps for the Western parts of USSR.

I bet German topo maps of their own territory were on a par with anything the Finns had. Just a hunch.

No contest. But was their national topographical service built to service the needs of the artillery or was the German artillery using methods which did not count on accurate topographical data being present ?

P.S. Your question of who the mortar man was expected, as was your predictable response.

I would have been equally unsurprised if the mortar man had been in the British or the German army. Had he been in the Finnish army I would have been surprised.

Thankfully other Finns can get their viewpoint accross, from the Finnish perspective, without coming off like a blind nationalist.

You once asked me what possible relevance did the Finnish war experience had when discussing the combat mechanics in the Western front. I did not label you a blind nationalist then.

Now I'm trying to inject them to a debate concerning the Eastern front when the British and the American war experience are being thrown around as relevant. Am I a blind nationalist if I hint the validity of the British and the American war experience in an Eastern front debate is not as relevant as the Finnish war experience ?

[ February 11, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Battlefront.com]

I'll bite once...

Tero,

This is propably the most inane respond from you I have ever seen.

A compliment, I am sure.

It is totally irrelevant to what extent the Finnish topographical service was mapping the previously uncharted territories.

You wanted to compare apples to oranges in order to paint Finnish topographical abilities as superior. I simply turned it around. You don't like that? Fine, withdraw your comment.

Practically the entire national service was built up to service the Finnish army (artillery). I assume the German Army topographical service was built up to service the German army. Which fulfilled its task better ?

This is not the right question. The question should be, which nation was satisfied to have a limited war goal. Finland had modest goals and therefore required only modest resources to obtain their goals (which were ultimately not obtained). Germany had completely unrealistic goals and therefore its system was completely unable to cope with it. Topography was the least of these problems.

The Finnish artillery was not too happy about the instant maps they got within 48 hours of the recce flight. But they were accurate enough for fire missions as per the procedures of the Finnish artillery. And they were most certainly accurate enough for the use of the infantry.

I am sure the German's weren't all that much worse off either. Their problem was one of scale. Their front moved KMs within hours. This was not the case on the Finnish front except for very small and geographically limited areas. This is not to say the Finns were substandard or not better than the Germans, rather I simply made the statement because you presumed them to be superior. As you do with anything Finnish.

The inaccuracy of the German maps is legendary, especially in the East.

Correct. If the Finns suddenly found themselves advancing on Moscow they certainly would have had similar problems. Or did they have maps of all of Russia from the Finnish border to the Black Sea and over to the Urals better than the Germans did?

IIRC they used the Michelin maps during their campaign in the West when they lacked proper maps. There were no Michelin maps for the Western parts of USSR.

This is true. Since the Soviets weren't exactly welcoming of German cartographers running around their HUGE country, where and when were the Germans supposed to get better maps?

I bet German topo maps of their own territory were on a par with anything the Finns had. Just a hunch.

Then a hunch is that technically speaking, their mapping capabilities were on a par. But the Germans had to do what the Finns never did, which was map all of the Soviet Union during active military operations.

I would have been equally unsurprised if the mortar man had been in the British or the German army. Had he been in the Finnish army I would have been surprised.

You asked because you wanted to imply bias/ignorance. Otherwise you would not have asked.

You once asked me what possible relevance did the Finnish war experience had when discussing the combat mechanics in the Western front. I did not label you a blind nationalist then.

You tried IIRC. However, you would have been stupid to. The Finnish experience had NO bearing on the Western Front. Nationalism has nothing to do with it. Simple historical facts do. (Edit: see PS at bottom)

Now I'm trying to inject them to a debate concerning the Eastern front when the British and the American war experience are being thrown around as relevant. Am I a blind nationalist if I hint the validity of the British and the American war experience in an Eastern front debate is not as relevant as the Finnish war experience ?

No Tero, you are not a blind nationalist for pointing out REAL differences between Finnish and other national experiences. The problem is you regullarly point out differences with the aim of showing that the Finnish method is superior or uniquely clever compared to the others. This is as true with this artillery discussion as the previous one I was invovled with. It is also as true with this subject as with others. You have openly stated your contempt for "Western" sources, for example. You also do not think that anybody who is no Finnish could grasp anything Finnish in nature. Or if they can do this mostly, they are still missing something fundamentally important (no matter how trivial it really is).

None of this should come as a shock to you Tero. I don't think anybody who has been on this BBS for a couple of years would be. Your nearly blindly pro Finnish stance and (worse) anti-everybody else way of thinking is legandary. Even other Finns speak of it to me. So please, do everybody including yourself a favor... discuss the issues that are relevant instead of creating new ones that are not. You are quite smart and very well educated, just not all that nice to have a debate with.

Steve

P.S. Forgot to add that no, the American and British experience is not directly relevant to the Eastern Front. If you haven't noticed I have largely ignored/refuted all issues brought up that are not relevant. However, the US and Brit doctrine/abilities are a common frame of refference for nearly all Forum members, so it is idiotic to think that they should not be used for at least comparision's sake.

[ February 11, 2003, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[JonS]

Steve,

A few comments and clarifications.

Nope. What your comment indicates is that you have a narrow idea of what "crushing" means, ...

*shrug* Call me a pedant. In my training I was taught to use words according to specific, defined, meanings. It helps with clarity

... and an even narrower idea of our understanding of artillery.

Well, since my idea of your understanding is based on what you write, and what is presented in the model in CM, one could honestly say that. One could even say it without being rude about it

US casualty statistics indicate that nearly 75% of casualties caused in WWII were the result of shell splinters. Obviously suppression isn't the only thing artillery (which includes mortars) is good for.

Aw, c'mon now Steve – apples with apples. Those stats refer to all artillery casualties, anywhere, at anytime. Meaning that a significant proportion of them will have occurred out of the front line (out of CMs scope), on otherwise quiet sections of the front (again, outside CMs scope), or during truly large fireplans (once again, outside CMs scope). I’m happy for artillery to get credit, but credit where it’s due.

The RA accepted as doctrine that while they might like to destroy - or crush - the enemy, what they could actually guarantee to do, more-or-less, in CM-type battles was suppress the enemy.

Er, rider to that: The assumption there is that the Germans would be defending and the RA would be supporting an attack. If the Germans were up and moving, then wholesale carnage was certainly on the cards. Hmm. Thinking about it some more, this applies to the point above about US Cas Stats, since in WWII the US was generally on the attack, or up and moving.

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

Suppression is – or should be – the prime goal of field artillery ... As it stands, this isn’t overly well modelled, IMHO ...

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

I don't agree with this statement any more than I agree with the previous one that mortars are "useless".

I take it you mean the ‘isn’t overly well modelled’ comment? Well, as I said, it’s my opinion. I didn’t say that the model sucked, or that GI Combat did it better, or anyfink. TBH, I thought I put my disagreement rather mildly I know I tried to. Oh – the ‘mortars are useless’ comment wasn’t mine. In fact, I think both on- and off-board mortars are fine (besides the general problems with the artillery model )

QBs were not designed to be substitutes for battles made in the Editor. Intensive use of artillery, airpower, defensive elements, etc. is simply too difficult to manage using an on the fly purchasing system. Therefore we did not expend much energy in that direction.

Fair enough.

My point was that the "typical" (= average) battle at CM's scale worthy of simulation did not hinge on artillery modeling in REAL LIFE because it was cronically short on the Eastern Front, just like tanks were...

Well, I can’t really comment on the Eastern Front, but given that CMBB is pretty well done-and-dusted, and that AIUI the next CM will likely be back on the Western Front (be it early war, Med, whatever), that is mostly where my comments are aimed.

That said, I’d guess that there would be more than a few infantrymen who would disagree, and point out that battles at CMs scale often did hinge on good use of artillery / a good artillery model (yes Andreas, I know. Jary is one exception). Whether it was ‘many’ or ‘most’ battles, who knows? Survivor bias probably comes in here a bit.

I would say most of the game development was on infantry. Especially for CMBB. Graphics... absolutely VEHICLES (of all flavors). Artillery was a runner up to armor for sure ... Remember, infantry in CM is not just a bunch of stickfigures with simplistic weapons ... I can assure you that probably 2-3 times as much man hours were spent on infantry data than vehicle data ... Finding out what the composition of a 1941 Hungarian Rifle Squad was... now there was some painful research! ... Check the game again. Infantry has about the same number of orders than vehicles do.

Actually, I left infantry out on purpose. I agree that they should get the treatment they have received, at least. That is why I commented on armour.

Well, except for the Axis minors that is, but that’s just me I like the fact that they’re in there, but don’t use them, wouldn’t miss ‘em if they were gone. (Note for uberFinns/Hungarians/Rumanians/Italians/etc, the preceding is strictly my opinion, which in this case I expect will carry very little weight )

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

... where do the engineers come in?

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

Dead last ... Go back in the depths of postings and see just how badly infomed most people are when it comes to what engineers could, and could not, do within the context of a CM battle.

I know, I know. The engineers comment was meant as a bit of levity. Still, I think they might come before air ...

But one can simulate Battalion fire in CMBO and CMBB. Simply purchase the correct number and mix of FOs and bingo... you have it right there. Perhaps not realistic in terms of the method for its employment (i.e. not just a single FO), but the game results will be spot on if used correctly.

Oh, I know that - I wrote an article suggesting how it could be done in CMBO (IIRC it’s at Dorosh’s ‘Canuck’ site}. Still, it’s not exactly elegant is it? Also, it is far too expensive for use in a QB. Even in a scen, where you don’t have to purchase the FOs, all those extras still represent a fairly sizeable chunk of VPs roaming around the battlefield.

Charles has refused to do this each of the 100 times it was asked for ... This is probably the only thing in/not in CMBB that I disagree with Charles over. But he is the master of the code, so his word is final.

Ah, ok. If this has been pointed out before I must have missed it.

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

... Charles’ figure could refer to the opening round of adjustment. A 250m error there I would find quite believable, if not on the low-side.

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

Correct, and correct.

In that case the 250m figure has very little to do with the average mean error of FFE, which I think is what you indicated it is being used for?

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

... infer unseen terrain ...

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

Correct. LOS is too restrictive when it comes to spotting for artillery. Obviously something that will be improved later on. The issue with the code now is that there is NO way to figure out if the FO can "infer" or not ...

Oh, I definitely don’t think it will be an easy fix.

Thinking off the cuff: perhaps you could give artillery impacts a temporarily assigned ‘diameter and height’ value (representing the dust and dirt thrown up) which the FO could spot to. Then, if the FO can see any part of that pillar the adjustment proceeds as for a full-LOS mission (or perhaps a bit slower), while if he can’t see any part of it the mission goes to the current out-of-LOS code.

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

... smoke in adjustment...

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

Depends on the lay of the terrain and is more adjustable Left/Right rather than the range I should think.

Naturally it depends on the lay of the land. The point is that in Real Life™ this is just one way for FOs to overcome the lay of the land. But in CM the technique is unavailable, unless one takes the very abstract approach that it was done before the battle begins and is represented in-game by TRPs.

The left/right vs. add/drop concern you raise isn’t valid.

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

... sound adjustment.

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

For preregistering, I agree. During the din of battle? I would think this would be extremely difficult to do.

Yes, during the din of battle - some battles are noisier than others, as are some parts of battles. And again, the point is that this is another Real Life™ way of overcoming some situations where ‘normal’ full-LOS adjustment can’t be done, not that it is applicable in any and all battles. And it isn’t modelled.

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

... CM FOs behave like they are still in kindergarten, while their armoured and infantry CM brethren act like they have graduated from university.

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

Matter of opinion, obviously.

Obviously. But I think you’ve already agreed that the infantry and armour models are more sophisticated than the artillery model, so perhaps it’s an opinion that you share – at least in part.

I think Jon agrees with me that CM's artillery, while not on a par with infantry and vehicles, is generally realistic. Not to say their aren't shortcomings, limitations, imperfections, etc... but that the original poster's claim of it being "poor" was at best a tad bit overstated.

Also, since I did not see Jon refuting my counter points (for the most part) to X-00's orginal post, I can only assume that he thinks those points were (as I do) largely misplaced. Scale appears to be the major reason.

Generally realistic, yeah. “Poor”? Nope. Most of what I wrote was to ... um ... offer suggestions/the benefits(?!?) of my training and experience/insights you might otherwise be unaware of. Nothing personal anyway.

If I am wrong to say the above, I am sure Jon will say so

Steve! I’d never say you were wrong There are much better ways of putting it

All the best

Jon

[ February 11, 2003, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andreas]

Just a note - the German Kartographieinsttitute were part of the General Staff until 1918, i.e. cartography in Germany was a military undertaking, serving military needs. The basis for the survey was done by 1910, and corrected regularly thereafter. Following the 1st WW the responsibility went over to the federal states, where it still resides today.

To say that the German troops used Michelin when abroad is only part of the truth. These would have been useless for firing based on the map. More important were either surveys undertaken on the hoof by the Kartographiebatterien, Astro-Batterien, both a branch of the artillery as the name indicates (this was rare) or the use of captured military maps of the enemy, which were then reprinted and overprinted with German and additional indications. Cartograhical units were present down to division level in some cases.

As Steve says, to think that the Germans were worse at this then the Finns is just a ludicrous statement. I would like to see the super-douper detailed all-singing all dancing minutely accurate Finnish map of the approaches to the Caucasus please, to have some proof of that statement.

A question - since the Finns were so great with their maps, did they actually share them with the German artillery units in Finnland?

Another question - how good were the Finns at counter-battery, especially in northern Finland?

Thanks to Joerg Wurdack of http://forum.panzerlexikon.de for this information. Any errors made in translating it and putting it up here are mine.

[ February 11, 2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

puff...puff

Is it to late to add that the effectiness of artillery was greatly reduced by heavy snow. The shells burrow down and the blanket of snow absorbs a good deal of the blast.

Regards

A.E.B

I think this holds mainly true for smaller calibres and mortars, and is already in the game.

[thewood]

I saw the comment about few wargames being written by artillery men or having accurate representations. Armored Task Force (ATF) is written by an active Army Artillery Officer (Captain Procter) and has been declared by several active duty people as the most accurate depiction of artillery in scope of combined arms in a wargame.

But I will say this...It may actually take the accuracy too far. I was a beta tester and it was very tedious to control. He also did a bang up job on engineers, but again the same issue. I spent most of my time doing engineering working and planning arty. That is probably a true representation of modern combat at a staff level, but the battle was almost over before the infantry and armor got there.

Also note that the infantry and armor models in ATF are much more simplistic than the CM games. So you can see what happens when the priorities are switched.

[Ryan Crierie]

Uh... Just yesterday, three rounds from a 81 mm mortar saved my day by driving the enemy infantry platoon from the victory flag. Whatever is worthless, it's not the mortars.

I'd like to know how you managed to get them

to save your day. Commo ranges are too short,

meaning your mortars have to be virtually on the

front line.

Better to just buy a 75mm Infantry gun, than

a 81mm mortar. You get over twice the

blast effect of an 81mm, for a few more points,

and in quickbattles, an Infantry gun has

the same indirect fire capability that a mortar

has - none.

I'd love to see how you can get mortars to fire

on a target some 1.5 km away and under cover

in 1/2 of the quickbattles generated randomly.

Oh that's right. You can't. So why have mortars

in the game if you can't make full use of their

indirect fire capabilities?

[ February 11, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uh... Just yesterday, three rounds from a 81 mm mortar saved my day by driving the enemy infantry platoon from the victory flag. Whatever is worthless, it's not the mortars.

I'd like to know how you managed to get them

to save your day. Commo ranges are too short,

meaning your mortars have to be virtually on the

front line.

Better to just buy a 75mm Infantry gun, than

a 81mm mortar. You get over twice the

blast effect of an 81mm, for a few more points,

and in quickbattles, an Infantry gun has

the same indirect fire capability that a mortar

has - none.

</font>

[WineCape]

My humble take on the artillery discussion. More of a Side note: I have read numerous threads for the past weeks and though the debate is mostly relevant or interesting at least, we need not to lose the focus IMO. My focus/comment is more based on GAME mechanics in general for the PLAYER in the Combat Mission series. While I’ll leave to learned others (as per this thread) the more in-depth discussion regarding artillery doctrine per se, my comments are based on improvement, visual or otherwise, in the execution of FO artillery orders for the PLAYER.

We need to make the PLAYER USE of artillery in future CM’s more exciting or “sexy”

It is pure JOY to use, maneuver, order etc. infantry and AFV’s around in CM. They are simple, effective and each order is executed to the best of the AI’s ability. There is a multitude of orders for these combined warfare components and a lot of effort has been spend programming on them. Artillery is much more approximated than the other arms of combat, so admitted by BFC.

What do we as CM PLAYERS need: We players need more visual aid/control over certain aspects/mechanics of the artillery usage - also a sort of wish list if you prefer. Realistic PLAYER aids/suggestions, which still fall within the scope of realistic artillery usage:

(1) The ordering of only X amount of shells to be fired from the total load-out.

(2) The spotting round should be visual to players, say a taller smoke/colour plume or whatever Charles fancy is more appropriate for easy spotting. The searching for a spotting round is currently not practical as a PLAYER aid.

(3) Setting/selecting basic firings sheafs by the player.

… to name a basic few examples. We know and trust BFC to adhere to realistic approximations of artillery execution in CM, but we as players need less artillery approximations currently in CM or at least better/more interesting ideas of using/executing those given approximations for the player as currently envisioned by BFC.

Jon, your insight and discussions are always interesting. While it is true that something or other MUST be approximated in CM for the sanity of Steve and Charles, as there is only so many programming hours in the day, we need also to focus how to help Charles implement improved approximations for artillery in Combat Mission for the PLAYERS in general, based obviously on realistic use of artillery doctrine. To this end, many forum members (including you) suggested many an idea before.

If Steve can give us an rough insight what ideas Charles/BFC are currently entertaining – if any at this moment - or worth entertaining given Charles’ programming priorities for CMx2 for artillery, then we might steer the discussion on artillery to more concrete and fruitful direction for the sole programmer, Charles.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

[ February 11, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Oh that's right. You can't. So why have mortars in the game if you can't make full use of their indirect fire capabilities?

Because 'the game' is not just dealing with quick battles, no matter how much you maybe focused on them?

Apart from that I (and apparently many others) don't have problems using on-board mortars in indirect fire mode. May I suggest brushing up on CMBB combat tactics if you do have problems?

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

*shrug* Call me a pedant. In my training I was taught to use words according to specific, defined, meanings. It helps with clarity

You're serious, aren't you? You have NEVER heard "crush" or "crushin" used in the way I described? You think my use conflicts with the definition?

Main Entry: crush

Function: verb

transitive senses

1 a : to squeeze or force by pressure so as to alter or destroy structure b : to squeeze together into a mass

2 : HUG, EMBRACE

3 : to reduce to particles by pounding or grinding

4 a : to suppress or overwhelm as if by pressure or weight b : to oppress or burden grievously c : to subdue completely

5 : CROWD, PUSH

I think the first definition is spot on. Nowhere do I see YOUR definition, which is to obliterate to the extent of non existance. So perhaps if you are going to read way too much into one word,then claim you are just being precise, you should first know what the word's definition and common usage is? Sorry if I sound pissy here, but I think it is warranted.

Well, since my idea of your understanding is based on what you write, and what is presented in the model in CM, one could honestly say that.

Nothing I have ever said, and nothing in CM, shows the kind of fundamental cluelessness you appear to think we have. So perhaps you should reevaluate your assumptions?

Aw, c'mon now Steve – apples with apples. Those stats refer to all artillery casualties, anywhere, at anytime.

Correct. And I was comparing apples to apples. Your statement:

"Artillery is great for suppression, but not so great at destruction of the enemy "

I simply pointed out that artillery is obviously great for creating casualties as well. If it wasn't, then how could it account for 75% of the casualties inflicted? And obviously you ignored the sentence right after:

"Obviously suppression isn't the only thing artillery (which includes mortars) is good for."

Obviously you don't disagree, so why are you digging in on this one?

Er, rider to that: The assumption there is that the Germans would be defending and the RA would be supporting an attack. If the Germans were up and moving, then wholesale carnage was certainly on the cards. Hmm. Thinking about it some more, this applies to the point above about US Cas Stats, since in WWII the US was generally on the attack, or up and moving.

Thank you for actually thinking about this. There was a piecemeal attack made by a battalion of the German 12th Infantry Division (IIRC) that was nearly obliterated by artillery fire alone. They were caught in the open in a killing zone and suffered (IIRC) some 500 casualties. That is 30%, which is much more than a suppressing effect. Then of course there was the near anhilation of the 12th SS in the Bulge through artillery alone, and of course the massive frontline casualties suffered in Bagration by the Germans.

My point is not that artillery is the ultimate killing tool, but that it is not just a tool of suppression. I have no idea why I have to make this point to someone who knows so much about artillery and get it refuted as not being "apples to apples"

I take it you mean the ‘isn’t overly well modelled’ comment? Well, as I said, it’s my opinion. I didn’t say that the model sucked, or that GI Combat did it better, or anyfink. TBH, I thought I put my disagreement rather mildly I know I tried to. Oh – the ‘mortars are useless’ comment wasn’t mine. In fact, I think both on- and off-board mortars are fine (besides the general problems with the artillery model )

Your statement here is confused. You say that suppression should be a main outcome of artillery usage, then you say in CM it ‘isn’t overly well modelled’, then say that you think that 'both on- and off-board mortars are fine'. How can they be fine and not well modelled? Obviously I think the suppression element (forgetting about other elements) is modeled quite well in CM, which is why I disagreed with your initial assessment.

That said, I’d guess that there would be more than a few infantrymen who would disagree, and point out that battles at CMs scale often did hinge on good use of artillery / a good artillery model (yes Andreas, I know. Jary is one exception). Whether it was ‘many’ or ‘most’ battles, who knows? Survivor bias probably comes in here a bit.

I don't disagree. But I do not agree that battles hing MORE on artillery than any other branch. I would like to see someone who is great at using artillery, but sucks at infantry handling, do better on average than someone who is better at infantry and sucks at artillery. That is my point. In all battles, with or with out artillery and/or armor support, the handling of infantry is by far the most important element. In real life and in CM. Even on the Western Front, by and large, infantry very often had to fight without support from other branches, or at the very least without disproportional support from these other branches.

Actually, I left infantry out on purpose. I agree that they should get the treatment they have received, at least. That is why I commented on armour.

Your comment was:

"To me it seems that too much emphasis was given to armour. (Please note the emphasis there – this is my opinion, while it’s your game ) This skewing of emphasis shows up in lots of ways, but the most noticeable is in the number of AFV and vehicle models, and their corresponding accuracy. "

I clearly outlined with this perception of emphasis is incorrect. It is. The "number" of AFV and vehicle models is not the way to judge. No more than judging a book by its cover does any good. I will say again, the emphasis was on infantry first, vehicles second, artillery third, and air last.

Well, except for the Axis minors that is, but that’s just me I like the fact that they’re in there, but don’t use them, wouldn’t miss ‘em if they were gone. (Note for uberFinns/Hungarians/Rumanians/Italians/etc, the preceding is strictly my opinion, which in this case I expect will carry very little weight )

I know, I know. The engineers comment was meant as a bit of levity. Still, I think they might come before air ...

I agree, but then again I think of engineers as being part of "infantry", just as I do support weapons, bunkers, etc.

Oh, I know that - I wrote an article suggesting how it could be done in CMBO (IIRC it’s at Dorosh’s ‘Canuck’ site}. Still, it’s not exactly elegant is it?

No, it isn't. But it is still possible to do, which has clearly been assumed by some in this thread to not be possible. I thought you were implying the same thing, but obviously not.

Also, it is far too expensive for use in a QB.

See earlier comments about QBs. The balancing act which is required for large quantities of artillery are far too delicate to be done in QBs.

Even in a scen, where you don’t have to purchase the FOs, all those extras still represent a fairly sizeable chunk of VPs roaming around the battlefield.

If you don't lose your FOs, you don't lose an VPs. In other words, VPs are basically a non issue for user created scenarios. All that matters is how many casualties and victory locations you rack up. Therefore, there is no problem with adding loads of artillery to a scenario from a victory condition standpoint in the strictest sense. Obviously what the artillery can do is the issue that is necessary to balance, not the points.

In that case the 250m figure has very little to do with the average mean error of FFE, which I think is what you indicated it is being used for?

I don't recall the exact thread (in our Beta Discussion Area) where Charles discussed this. I will have to opt out here because I simply can't comment on it. But I don't think it is necessary because my point is that inaccuracy in real world artillery terms is apparently a lot different than what gamer's think (i.e. 250m realistically is pretty good, but in the game can be a total waste).

Thinking off the cuff: perhaps you could give artillery impacts a temporarily assigned ‘diameter and height’ value (representing the dust and dirt thrown up) which the FO could spot to. Then, if the FO can see any part of that pillar the adjustment proceeds as for a full-LOS mission (or perhaps a bit slower), while if he can’t see any part of it the mission goes to the current out-of-LOS code.

Yes, something like this is probably the best way of going about it. However, the current engine is completely unable to do something like this. New engine all is possible.

Naturally it depends on the lay of the land. The point is that in Real Life™ this is just one way for FOs to overcome the lay of the land. But in CM the technique is unavailable, unless one takes the very abstract approach that it was done before the battle begins and is represented in-game by TRPs.

The left/right vs. add/drop concern you raise isn’t valid.

Just pointing out why we couldn't do it in the existing engine.

Yes, during the din of battle - some battles are noisier than others, as are some parts of battles. And again, the point is that this is another Real Life™ way of overcoming some situations where ‘normal’ full-LOS adjustment can’t be done, not that it is applicable in any and all battles. And it isn’t modelled.

Correct. Many things are not modeled because a) we have limited development time and/or is not compatiable with existing code and/or c) technically it is impossible/extremely difficult. And cutting out vehicles doesn't solve any of these problems.

Obviously. But I think you’ve already agreed that the infantry and armour models are more sophisticated than the artillery model, so perhaps it’s an opinion that you share – at least in part.

I agree that Infantry and Vehicles are modeled better than Artillery and Air. But I do not agree with your characterization that there is a huge gulf between them.

Generally realistic, yeah. “Poor”? Nope. Most of what I wrote was to ... um ... offer suggestions/the benefits(?!?) of my training and experience/insights you might otherwise be unaware of. Nothing personal anyway.

Nothing personal on this end either. Just trying to sort things out so people aren't left with incorrect impressions. From X-OO it would be that CM's artillery is a failure. From you it is that we don't understand what artillery is all about (in the real sense) and that artillery is not all that useful in the game. I think after your second response you have cleared up both of these points.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Charl,

I was thinking of you the other night as I was sipping on some nice wine from SA (Southern Australia ). Thanks again for the great stuff. My wife thanks you as well! Anyhoo...

If Steve can give us an rough insight what ideas Charles/BFC are currently entertaining – if any at this moment - or worth entertaining given Charles’ programming priorities for CMx2 for artillery, then we might steer the discussion on artillery to more concrete and fruitful direction for the sole programmer, Charles.

I can not say for sure what will be in CMx2 (who have you been talking with? ), but it will likely be along the lines of:

1. All artillery assets will be controllable from a single FO element *or* HQ element. The exact rules for who can do what and when are irrelevant until we start speaking of a specific nation and time period. The point is to make the code allow for the most flexibable case and then put in limitations as needed on a case by case basis.

2. There will be specific firing orders like in CM, but with greater variety. For example, it is certain that there will be a command to fire x rounds with y type of fire pattern. Like above, the system will be designed for the highest level of control possible in the world today, which means we can scale it back to suit the needs of the specific nation/time period in question.

3. More sophisticated treatment of corrections. This should be automated from a game standpoint. In other words, if the fire plan called for is for pinpoint accuracy, the FO/HQ will be able to get that kind of pinpoint accuracy only to the degree it is capable of influencing. By this I mean training (both FO/HQ and gunners), basic capabilities (communications net, LOS, doctrine, etc.), inherent limitations of the weapons system, etc.

What might this look like?

You have a FO, 3 batteries of medium artillery and a battalion of rocket artillery available. The FO sees a specific target it wants to hit , like an AT gun. The FO calls for fire from one battery to fire individual rounds for spotting. The system automatically assumes the FO is communicating corrections back to the battery. Once the FO is happy with the spotting rounds accuracy, he then automatically calls for a short barrage of 4 rounds from all three batteries of medium artillery or 12 rounds from one battery (depending on whatever would be historically accurate).

Swap the term "FO" with "HQ" and the same holds true for the above. Perhaps it might take longer with more shells fired to get the rounds to hit on target than the FO (perhaps not, though), but the end result will likely turn out the same.

The point is the player should be able to have more control and realsitic flexibility, but without having to pull one's hair out to achieve it. That is always our goal for CM features and we see no reason why we can't do this for artillery for the new engine.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You're serious, aren't you? You have NEVER heard "crush" or "crushin" used in the way I described? You think my use conflicts with the definition? ... Nowhere do I see YOUR definition, which is to obliterate to the extent of non existance.

Yeah, of course I've seen it used the way you meant it. However, I read it in accordance with this part of the definition you supplied:

...

3 : to reduce to particles by pounding or grinding

...

Which is part of "the word's definition and common usage," and consistent with "obliterate to the extent of non existance." I don't think I read way too much into it, and I also think the seeming pissyness was unwarranted. But I forgive you

Your statement here is confused. You say that suppression should be a main outcome of artillery usage, then you say in CM it ‘isn’t overly well modelled’, then say that you think that 'both on- and off-board mortars are fine'. How can they be fine and not well modelled?

The confusion is yours I think, since you missed the rider - "...(apart from the general problems with the artillery model)".

The mortar model sits well within the current artillery model. In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong with it that doesn't apply to the artillery generally. And the way on board mortars are handled in fine, IMO. Does that clarify things?

Nothing personal on this end either. Just trying to sort things out so people aren't left with incorrect impressions...

Hehe, me too but I think our perspectives are slightly different. I wouldn't like people to go away with the impression that what is modelled in CM is all that artillery was capable of at the tactical level.

Regards

Jon

P.S. Oh, the outline model you explained for the rewrite sounds very exciting. Are you entertaining comments on it? If so, please consider the following;

a) will two, or more, on board FOs have access to the same assets? Allowing, of course, that only one FO can use them at a time.

you indicate that the FO will decide for himself what scale of fire to use: "...he then automatically calls for a short barrage of 4 rounds from all three batteries of medium artillery or 12 rounds from one battery (depending on whatever would be historically accurate)..." This doesn't seem right to me. The FO would often consult with the supported arms commander (ie, the player) as to what scale of fire to allocate. And besides that, it seems like a fairly important decision to leave up to the AI.

[ February 11, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

Which is part of "the word's definition and common usage," and consistent with "obliterate to the extent of non existance."

It is also not the primary definition (which fits my usage) and does not mean the kind of TOTAL obliteration that you are meaning. I challenge you to find 10 usages of the word "crush" or "crushing" in military literature (either official or historical) and add up how many times the word is used along with definition #1 and how many are used with your (misplaced, IMHO) interpretation of #3. I bet you a quid that the count will be far in my favor.

I don't think I read way too much into it, and I also think the seeming pissyness was unwarranted.

OK, let me get this straight... you knew what I meant, but decided to interpret in a way that portrays me as ignorant of what artillery does. Then, when I pointed out that you read too much into a word that you purposefully misinterpreted, you get all huffy about me misusing the word and therefore it being my fault that you forgot everything about our previous discussions or my level of understanding of warfare. I then provide the definition which shows you to be in error, then you continue to (poorly) nitpick. Then you say I don't have a reason to be pissy with you? I beg to differ. If you want to screw around with words outside of context and reason, you should be prepared for a negative reaction. If you don't want a negative reaction, then don't do this and distract from the discussion.

Of course, you could just apologize for making a mountain out of nothing (not even a molehill) and we could leave it at that.

The mortar model sits well within the current artillery model. In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong with it that doesn't apply to the artillery generally. And the way on board mortars are handled in fine, IMO. Does that clarify things?

OK, so what you are saying is that the entire artillery modeling is not done "overly well", but that mortars aren't any worse in proportion? Got it. Don't agree with it, but got it.

Hehe, me too but I think our perspectives are slightly different. I wouldn't like people to go away with the impression that what is modelled in CM is all that artillery was capable of at the tactical level.

Good. I don't think anything I have said would imply that CM's modeling doesn't have something to be desired in terms of tactical level use. The important thing is to keep straight the real issues, the irrelevant issues, and the issues that can be worked around. X-OO started out with most issues fitting in the "irrelevant" column.

P.S. Oh, the outline model you explained for the rewrite sounds very exciting. Are you entertaining comments on it?

Sure, but it is too early for a discussion on this in detail. We also have extensive notes from other artillerymen (testers and here on the Forum) that we can draw from, as well as our own understanding of how artillery works. I say the latter because CM only reflects what we were able to code, not a reflection of what we know.

a) will two, or more, on board FOs have access to the same assets? Allowing, of course, that only one FO can use them at a time.

Yes, but we will have to have some sorts of rules for arbitration. Normally this would be done by some designated authority (depends on nation, scale, timeframe, mission, etc.) that wouldn't necessarily be present within the game.

you indicate that the FO will decide for himself what scale of fire to use: "...he then automatically calls for a short barrage of 4 rounds from all three batteries of medium artillery or 12 rounds from one battery (depending on whatever would be historically accurate)..." This doesn't seem right to me. The FO would often consult with the supported arms commander (ie, the player) as to what scale of fire to allocate.

Since the player controls all these elements, there is no point needlessly complicating the game. In other words, the FO and the commander are one in the same.

And besides that, it seems like a fairly important decision to leave up to the AI.

That seems illogical to me. The FO is not a unit different than any other unit. The player controls the FO as well as all other units. How can the AI determine what the player is thinking he wants employed? This is not possible to do (i.e. AI reading player's mind).

Remember... to avoid the problem thewood mentioned above... overly complex rules/interface does not enhance the simulation but most likely will detract from it. CM's current artillery erred too much on the side of simplicity, partly by design and partly by necessity (development issues). Artillery in the new engine will be just about as easy to use as in CM but more realistic/detailed.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Steve:

OK, let me get this straight... you knew what I meant, but decided to interpret in a way that portrays me as ignorant of what artillery does...

Gah! No, that isn't right at all When I first read your comment, I honestly interpreted it as 'grind to dust/nothing,' so that was the way I responded to it.

Out of interest I just opened a dictionary and, while it naturally has roughly the same definitions as yours, it puts them in a different order, with 'grind to nothing' higher than 'subdue'. So, which dictionary is right and which is the primary definition? Well, 'both' or 'neither' I suppose. The point is that we have different primary definitions of the word, and it caused confusion.

I labour this point because it seems to have coloured the rest of our discussion.

Of course, you could just apologize for making a mountain out of nothing (not even a molehill) and we could leave it at that.

Oh, I do apologise for implying ignorance. Actually, I didn't even do that - I said 'fairly basic misunderstanding.' I said that because it is an easy mistake to make , and one I have seen often before. It usually goes along the lines of:

* IF arty fires HE, AND

* HE blows stuff up, THEN

* the role of arty must be to blow stuff up and destroy things.

It's an easy, and seemingly a logical progression, to make. Indeed, it's the one I subscribed to years ago. It's also wrong.

This is what I thought you may have done. Happily it turns out I was wrong. The misunderstanding over 'crush' was an honest mistake by both of us, not an insult or an attempt to score points by me.

('Automatic' FOs) ... That seems illogical to me. The FO is not a unit different than any other unit. The player controls the FO as well as all other units. How can the AI determine what the player is thinking he wants employed? This is not possible to do (i.e. AI reading player's mind).

I understand and agree. Yet it seemed to me that this is what you had in mind. From your example, it sounded like the player would order the FO to fire at a particular location. Then the AI would take over, handle the adjustment, decide for itself how many barrels and rounds to allocate to FFE, and decide on the timing for going to FFE once adjustment was complete*. The 'automatic' bit is what caused my confusion (damn those words again ).

Also, as a sidebar, the FOs currently are a little different to other units. IIRC, if left to their own devices player-controlled FOs will never select a target and open fire, whereas all (most?) other units will. A player can prevent infantry and armour firing (hide, covered arcs, etc.), but holding fire isn't a 'native' behaviour. FOs you have to order to fire, infantry and armour you have to order not to fire.

Regards

Jon

* It sounds like the time taken in adjustment will be variable, which is realistic. But if it is, the player should perhaps have some control over the moment of firing FFE in order to assist all-arms co-ordination. The level of control here is something that could be adjusted to reflect national doctrines, level of training, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

This is what I thought you may have done. Happily it turns out I was wrong. The misunderstanding over 'crush' was an honest mistake by both of us, not an insult or an attempt to score points by me.

OK, all is well To me, someone thinking, after all these discussions and 2 tactical WWII games out the door, that artillery is primarily used to disrupt and not wipe out the enemy is like telling me that tanks aren't supposed to fly over targets and strafe them with their MGs. I feel confident I passed the "misconception" test with you artillery grogs a LONG time ago and didn't understand why one would still be in doubt.

However, you are correct. The lay person does think that big boom = body parts.

I understand and agree. Yet it seemed to me that this is what you had in mind. From your example, it sounded like the player would order the FO to fire at a particular location. Then the AI would take over, handle the adjustment, decide for itself how many barrels and rounds to allocate to FFE, and decide on the timing for going to FFE once adjustment was complete*. The 'automatic' bit is what caused my confusion (damn those words again ).

Ah, got it. What I meant by "automatic" is the adjustment phase. Player's won't have to issue seperate commands to judge range, correct for error, etc. Just tell the FO what you want to hit and how you want to hit it, and the code will do the rest. That part is REALLY simple to program from a conceptual standpoint. If there is one thing programmers love it is real world If/Then proceedures.

Judging what to unload and how to unload it is a much more complex arrangement (programming wise) than simulating adjusting fire. The cool thing is that we can screw around with the effectiveness of the whole thing based on the FO's experience, knowledge of the terrain, national doctrine, etc. quite easily in theory.

Also, as a sidebar, the FOs currently are a little different to other units. IIRC, if left to their own devices player-controlled FOs will never select a target and open fire, whereas all (most?) other units will.

Looked at it from that point of view, this is correct. But think about behavior... a FO is very similar to onboard guns, mortars, squads, etc. in that none of these units can issue Area Fire orders on their own. A FO is basically an Area Fire unit only. And that is the way it needs to be because artillery missions aren't easily defined. We probably will, however, give FOs some sort of Cover Arc type thing so they can be set to trigger based on limited parameters (SOPs).

* It sounds like the time taken in adjustment will be variable, which is realistic. But if it is, the player should perhaps have some control over the moment of firing FFE in order to assist all-arms co-ordination. The level of control here is something that could be adjusted to reflect national doctrines, level of training, etc.

Yes, this is planned. Basically, a "Pause" order for when FFE should commence after the target is registered.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You wanted to compare apples to oranges in order to paint Finnish topographical abilities as superior. I simply turned it around. You don't like that? Fine, withdraw your comment.

You did not turn anything around. You simply made a hyberbole that is not on the subject. You make a big deal about the universal applicability of the model you have created. Your claim is to be universally applicable the actual Finnish topographical survey would have had to have extended from Petsamo to the Black Sea. Or preferably around the globe. I contest that.

The Finnish army did not map the entire Western USSR. So what ? Topographics was and is not a Finnish secret art. But unlike the forces you modelled the arty aspect in CM on the Finnish artillery used methods which relied heavily on the availability of accurate topographical data. I hope you are not trying to deny the importance of topographical survey to the artillery practises during WWII.

This is not the right question. The question should be, which nation was satisfied to have a limited war goal. Finland had modest goals and therefore required only modest resources to obtain their goals (which were ultimately not obtained). Germany had completely unrealistic goals and therefore its system was completely unable to cope with it. Topography was the least of these problems.

What is the relevance of strategic goals in a CM scale battle and how do they affect it ? What is the relevance of the availability (or unavailability as the case may be) of accurate topographical data in a CM scale battle and how would it affect it ?

I think it is rather relevant that in the meager days of the 30's the Finnish army made a relatively huge effort to compensate the projected limited resources in fire power by being able to deliver what little would be available as accurately as humanly possible. Other armies took different approaches.

I am sure the German's weren't all that much worse off either.

So why did they complain when they came across a rail line not present in their maps ? Those kinds of things happened to the Finnish troops too, especially when they were retaking the ceded areas where the occupying Soviet forces had built for example rail lines.

Their problem was one of scale. Their front moved KMs within hours. This was not the case on the Finnish front except for very small and geographically limited areas.

True. But if you look at the universal applicability of the model you have created I would hesitate to say the problem was scale. The Germans did after all create their artillery doctrine which suited their operative needs. And which have been regarded as having been among the very best in the world at the time.

I'd say that if there is a problem then it is one of priorization. The Finnish artillery had different priorities and concerns than the German artillery.

You keep pointing out that the Finns did not have to map the entire western USSR. If they did or not is totally irrelevant and beside the point. You have built a model which you claim is universally applicable. That does not mean quantity will supercede quality when weighing the relative merits of the parts that make up the whole. Stuff like ballistics, meteorlogics and so on, including topography are universally applicable. The fact that the Finnish army fought in only one relatively narrow front and fired relatively few rounds is not worth jack even when compared to the delivered weight of fire and the number of fronts covered by the big armies . All are subject to the same basic, universally applicable facts of scientific life. If your main concern is the integrity of the model and taking into account the differences in the level of topographical preparedness will unbalance it then say so. Only then the model will no longer be universally applicable since all things are not equal.

This is not to say the Finns were substandard or not better than the Germans, rather I simply made the statement because you presumed them to be superior.

I presumed the Finnish method to have been superior because nobody, including you, has actually produced any real data on the subject of German topographical survey and its relevance to the German artillery doctrine. My understanding is the Germans (like the Americans and the British) developed their methods so that they would compensate the lack of accurate topographical data with other means. This way their methods would be workable in the Western Desert as well as they would be in the Arctic circle.

Also, several Finnish period sources have stated to that effect. In the absence of contradicting facts I can only reach the conclusion I have. If anybody comes across relevant data I will wellcome it with open arms. And if that data will trash all the Finnish sources then I will openly admit I am wrong.

As you do with anything Finnish.

Everybody has a subjective POV on things. Even you.

I do not presume any and all things Finnish are superior by default. Take the LS-26 vs Degtaryev for example. The LS was a fine weapon but not as good as the DT in field conditions.

Correct. If the Finns suddenly found themselves advancing on Moscow they certainly would have had similar problems.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The way the Finnish army operated I would imagine they would have churned out instant maps they way they did IRL. Provided of course that the Finnish army would have used historical methods but had, say, the German resources.

Or did they have maps of all of Russia from the Finnish border to the Black Sea and over to the Urals better than the Germans did?

Nope. But I would say that the Finnish army would have made sure they had them available to them in case they were needed.

This is true. Since the Soviets weren't exactly welcoming of German cartographers running around their HUGE country, where and when were the Germans supposed to get better maps?

That guestion is in the very core of the subject. I hope you did not mean it as a rethorical guestion. To be able to answer the guestion for the Germans you'd have to gather data on the recce missions they flew, their cartography service practises and how their intelligence apparatus was tied to these. Furthermore, how did things develop between 1941 and 1944-45.

The Finnish army made the recce flights and the instant maps were made from the recce photos, printed and made available to the front line units on average within 48hrs of the flight. During the static phase the maps were being improved where necessary.

Then a hunch is that technically speaking, their mapping capabilities were on a par.

I'd imagine so. Apart from the special camera which noted flight altitude took and two pictures simultaneously, (one from the terrain below and one from the horizon to get the terrain elevation differences) I can not see how the ground based triangulation process would have been very different.

But the Germans had to do what the Finns never did, which was map all of the Soviet Union during active military operations.

The Finnish army did it in its sector using the methods and equipment developed before the war. As you said it was a matter of resources. But it was also a matter of priorization.

Incidentaly, I did come to blows with Andreas over the Normandy area mapping when I first refused to believe the Germans did no topographical survey in occupied France between 1940 and 1944.

You asked because you wanted to imply bias/ignorance. Otherwise you would not have asked.

If I had wanted to imply bias/ignorance I would not have asked. I would have stated it flat out.

You take it for granted my frame of reference is a Finnish one and most of my statements are based on that. Is is SO incredible to believe an Amercian (in this case) giving expert opinion is basing his statement in his respective frame of reference ? I have no doubt the opinion was an informed one. But I do think any thoughts on alternative methods in existence during WWII were not considered because at the time it was not knows such existed. I am sure a Fininsh mortar man would have given a slighly different appraisal of the situation and its dynamics.

You tried IIRC.

No. I just asked what makes my POV bad and your POV good.

The Finnish experience had NO bearing on the Western Front.

At the time I was under the impression it would have a bearing on the universally applicable model you had created.

Nationalism has nothing to do with it. Simple historical facts do.

Agreed. Except I think there is no such thing as a simple historical fact.

The problem is you regullarly point out differences with the aim of showing that the Finnish method is superior or uniquely clever compared to the others.

And mostly people get hung up on the supposed attitude instead of tacling the subject with relevant counter facts. It is hard to discuss things from the Finnish POV if I do not type the word Finnish in every other sentence.

You have openly stated your contempt for "Western" sources, for example.

Contempt is not the correct adjective. It is one you have chosen yourself. I do admit I do not bow down in awe when people start throwing around the big names and their work and expect the work to speak for itself without any critisism. By the same token I am not revering any Finnish sources without critisism. It is just there are precious few reliable contradictory sources in existence. That is not contempt.

You also do not think that anybody who is no Finnish could grasp anything Finnish in nature.

No exactly. I do think a historian who has not accessed Finnish archives and primary sources can not render objective judgement on political decisions and actions taken by the Finns during the war. And I do abhor revering work of a historian has used solely German or Soviet sources and which is giving a "definitive" view on the events in the Finnish front.

Even other Finns speak of it to me.

I do hope I am not the main subject of the conversations.

If you haven't noticed I have largely ignored/refuted all issues brought up that are not relevant.

No matter where they originate.

However, the US and Brit doctrine/abilities are a common frame of refference for nearly all Forum members, so it is idiotic to think that they should not be used for at least comparision's sake.

The operative phrase being "comparions sake". That IMO should imply that there is some comparing to something different, not similar, is being made.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Just a note....

Thank you for the info. Can you direct me to a more specific source on the subject ?

To say that the German troops used Michelin when abroad is only part of the truth.

It is also one of the most widely spread truths I'm afraid.

These would have been useless for firing based on the map.

Indeed.

More important were either surveys undertaken on the hoof by the Kartographiebatterien, Astro-Batterien, both a branch of the artillery as the name indicates (this was rare) or the use of captured military maps of the enemy, which were then reprinted and overprinted with German and additional indications. Cartograhical units were present down to division level in some cases.

Do you have anything on the production and distribution of maps in the Eastern front ?

to think that the Germans were worse at this then the Finns is just a ludicrous statement.

For what reason: because it is totally inconciveable anybody, let alone the Finnish lice, would be better than the Germans in any field ?

I would like to see the super-douper detailed all-singing all dancing minutely accurate Finnish map of the approaches to the Caucasus please, to have some proof of that statement.

Who ever claimed this should answer. Steve ?

A question - since the Finns were so great with their maps, did they actually share them with the German artillery units in Finnland?

AFAIK no.

Another question - how good were the Finns at counter-battery,

AFAIK not too many counterbattery fire missions were fired because the hardware lacked the necessary range. When counter-battery was fired it was generally at least as effective as the German counter-battery fire.

especially in northern Finland?

That is easy: no Finnish artillery in Northern Finland before late 1944.