Jump to content

On Map Artillery Farce, Yes Farce


Recommended Posts

So your HQ can spot for your mortars but not your on map artillery?!? Where is the applicable historical authority for that????

You can buy on map artillery which therefore becomes the artillery of your force just like mortars, your HQ is apparently quite capable of spotting for the mortars but not for the artillery.

Please explain. And it had better be good smile.gif

As a side note, although this is a great game, its things like this and infantry which don't get an automatic protection improvement for the assumed development of their static positions, aircraft which can sight and fire through forests, etc which make you wonder :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, yes, I'm afraid there are a few loose ends and other untidinesses.

As for the on-map arty business, the rationale for not allowing them to fire indirectly was that their minimum range in that mode was too long to fit on a CM map. In some cases that argument won't hold water, but as a generalization it is broadly true.

Presumably these and other problems will be addressed to everyone's complete satisfaction in CMx2. Otherwise, I predict a torchbearing mob marching on BFC headquarters.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Artillery system goes a long way back to CMBO, and has been designed with ease of use / playability in mind, not necessarily realism. The problem is that this artillery business is quite complex smile.gif Back in the design phase for CMBO we toyed with trying to span the bridge between realism and playability, but found it next to impossible to do (within the time available; everything goes back to the time that is available of course, or otherwise you wouldn't even be playing CMBO yet). So we simplified it in certain areas which, by and large, have the least impact on the overall land battle simulation.

Artillery, specifically, is (artificially of course, it's a game design decision) divided between on-map and off-map as in direct fire vs. indirect fire. Back in CMBO, this decision was VERY sounds, as the maximum map sizes generally were smaller than what you see in CMBB and CMAK, so that minimum indirect fire ranges would have prevented indirect fire in most cases anyway. The issue got muddied a bit after CMBO, of course. Still, in 90% of the case, the ability to direct indirect fire from on-map artillery for anything but mortars is realistic.

The artillery model has been improved a little in CMBB and again in CMAK, but like Rob says, the root problems are, well, rooted too deeply in the basic game design that it's not something that is easily fixable.

By the way, I wonder... anybody (yes, I'm look at you, sand digger smile.gif ) knows a game that does it better than CM?

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You used the term 'Farce'. Twice. And that was in the Topic line.

You should know that the term 'Farce' on the BattleFront.Com boards is Copyrighted by The Cesspool (dba The Peng Challenge Thread), and cannot be used on this Forum without permissions.

Permissions are freely granted without payment, so long as the User observes the following conditions:

1) 'Farce' shall not be used more than once in any Topic, Subject Line, or sentence, unless for humorous impact. 'Humorous Impact' shall be determined by Registered Agents of 'The CessPool' (Refer to 'Justicar Joe' for a complete list of Registered Agents, Powers, and Criteria of Determination)

2) Use of the term 'Farce' in a Forum Topic shall acknowledge, by use of the symbol (pct) immediately following, that 'Farce' is a registered copyright of the Peng Challenge Thread. Use of the term 'Farce' in a post, message, sentence, or other missive need not acknowledge copyright unless the usage of the term 'Farce' exceeds more than five (5) references for any given total of three (3) sentences; 'sentences' to be determined by Registered Agents of the Peng Challenge Thread.

3) Use of the term 'Farce' shall not be used in such a way as to constitute a denigration, cheapening, or dilution of the term, nor do any damage to to the concept of 'Farce', nor be used in such a way as to cast into disrepute the term 'Farce', again as determined by Registered Agents of the Peng Challenge Thread. In the case of disputes regarding usage, a panel shall be constituted and be comprised of said Registered Agent of the Peng Challenge Thread, an Agent of the 'Cheery Wafflers', an accredited Neo-Con emigre of the Former Republic of the Political Forum, Any Given Aussie Bugger, and a randomly selected halfwit from the BFC General Forum, to be determined by the casting of lots, or a throw of dice, or by whichever fecking Dutch or Belgian idiot might actually be online at the time.

4) The use of the term 'Farce' shall be permitted without hindrance or prejudice with regards to any statement made by Grog Dorosh, so long as it is not used in any manner that constitutes a violation of the clauses already given.

5) Use of the term 'Farce' clearly acknowledges, explicitly or by means of footnotes, parentheses, or some other form of groveling, the ownership and supremacy over the term by the Peng Challenge Thread.

6) 'Farce' may be used freely, without other acknowledgment by any Forum Poster, so long as such usage does not exceed 'reasonable use'. 'Reasonable Use' shall, if called in question, be determined by Gotz von Berlichtigen, who is a Roight Bastard, but very liberal as regards idjits poncing about screaming things like 'Farce, Farce'.

[ December 04, 2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Seanachai ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sand digger, your post makes real one anxious to know what will be fixed/ improved in CMx2. It reminds me of how starving we are for basic information about it.

{The sound of metal cups banging against cell doors starts up in the background.}

It seems to me that with all this time that BFC is taking for the project, absolutely nothing should be left out because they didn't have enough time. (So keep yer fingers crossed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

It seems to me that with all this time that BFC is taking for the project...

In all honesty, it's not been all that much yet. They've only been on it less than a year and a half, I think. Plus, they have many more things demanding their attention now. They spent over two years on CMBO and nearly as much on CMBB, and those were about the only things that they had to work on it those days.

It's true that there was much more discussion with the gamers in those days too, and that is sorely missed, but I can guess some of the reasons why that is no longer possible.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Moon:

By the way, I wonder... anybody (yes, I'm look at you, sand digger smile.gif ) knows a game that does it better than CM?

Armored Task Force but that is quadratic overkill.

TacOps is a lot better with capabilities to hold fire (not dropping rounds but ready and targetted so that you can instantly go FFE), register TRPs (yes, within 30 minutes that is realistic) and specify how many volleys to drop before going into hold.

The TacOps interface is not much more complex and not harder to understand than CM's.

The main reason why TacOps can present a better arty model with less user interface complication is that it has a seperate Window with all modules and their status. CM doesn't like Windows and requires to dig down for spotters and their firing info has been squeezed into the unit status space. The window as used by TacOp is a clear simplifycation, not complication.

[ December 04, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Moon:

The issue got muddied a bit after CMBO, of course. Still, in 90% of the case, the ability to direct indirect fire from on-map artillery for anything but mortars is realistic.

This leaves only one guestion: why can the on-map mortars group their shots far tighter than their off-map brethren ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Moon:

The issue got muddied a bit after CMBO, of course. Still, in 90% of the case, the ability to direct indirect fire from on-map artillery for anything but mortars is realistic.

This leaves only one guestion: why can the on-map mortars group their shots far tighter than their off-map brethren ?

Maybe due range? The on map arty has a lot less ground to cover and thus is less impacted by wind, and other aspects of traviling through the air, I would guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Tero would learn to quote right so that he wouldn't let Moon's part appear as his in the quote, I would tell him that with direct control like in the CM HQ situation the spotter can adjust each individual tube. In the remote FO situation there is additional overhead and/or only adjustment of the battery as a whole.

The pattern for the indirect fire is far too wide in CMBB and CMAK, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, whine, whine; moan, moan.

Speaking as someone who has done his fair share of criticising the CM artillery stystem, I find the original post in this thread to be little better than petulant sour grapes.

No, the current CM artillery system is not perfect, and there as some wierd contradictions to the way off-map and on-map assets work. But, all things considered, it's a pretty good system for the given retrictions under which the original CM engine was developed, both in terms of hardware and resources (it still amazes me that BFC has only one coder!).

Yes, it is regrettable that indirect fire by on-map howitzers especially is not modeled. However, as already noted, indirect fire by on-map guns is applicable in far less situations than you might first imagine. In addition to a minimum range far longer than mortars, even howitzer fire usually comes in at a substantailly shallower angle than mortar fire.

This is important because shallower descent angles mean that vertical obstacles, like ridgelines, treelines and buildings will create "shadow zones" that the artillery simply can't hit because the interventing obstacle(s) will intercept the shell(s). Keep in mind this applies to both ends of the trajectory -- i.e., a howizter hidden behind a stand of trees has to fire at a high enough trajectory to clear the trees right in front of it, and also clear any vertical obstacles immediately in front of the target. This kind of detailed modeling of shell trajectory is far beyond what the current engine can do, and also beyond what any mass-market computer game that I am aware of can do.

Also, remember that you can't just slap the carriage of even a 75mm IG down on the ground and start popping off indirect fire. Given the higher projectile velocity and recoil (relative to mortars, that is) even light howizters would generally take far longer to set up well enough to get any reasonable level of accuracy with indirect fire.

This is not to say that the addition of on-map indirect fire for at least howitzers wouldn't be an excellent addition to CMX2. Players are deluding themselves, though, if they think this should be a common, easy-to-use tactic in a battalion-level game like CM.

As for "automatic protection improvement for the assumed development of their static positions," it's a bit unclear what you're getting at. If I am guessing at your indended meaning correctly, I do agree that eventually it might be nice if the "cover bonus" for infantry gradually increased a bit if the were stationary for an extended period of time, reflecting better use of cover (i.e, finding the best hiding spot, perhaps some modest improvement to the available cover, such as moving furniture to create additional barricades inside buildings), but the time required to dig even a hasty slit trench in soft ground is beyond what most CM scenarios present. Such additional complexity to the infantry model would be a welcome refinement, but IMHO its certainly not a gamebreaker as it is now.

I also have doled out my fair share of criticism on the Aircraft modeling in CM, but again it is worth remembering that this is complex and difficult thing to model, especially for a game whose primary focus is not air combat or air attack. Some things are much more visible from the air than they are from the ground (and vice versa). For example, any kind of fresh digging (such as a foxhole) tends to be easily spotted from the air due to the different color of the fresh earth, even if there are trees or other overhead cover. On the other side of the coin, terrain elements that offer very little concealment from ground observation, such as the shadow on the side of a building, make units virtually invisible from the air.

It's a complex issue which I hope to see improvement on in CMX2. For now, I mostly avoid battles with air assets, mostly because from my reading really close CAS (as opposed to Tactical Air Interdiction, or planned area bombing of objectives or susupected enemy strongpoints) was a pretty rare thing in WWII, and also because it is, at best, only moderately well modeled in CM as it is now. In any event, I find air support a pretty unsatisfying way to win or lose a battle since it's mostly a throw if the dice, so I avoid it.

Oh, and as for the tighter fall of shot pattern of on-board mortars: Yes, try firing an on-map mortar at a range similar to what the off-map mortar batteries would presumably be firing. That is, a good 1.5km or more. You will find that the longer the range gets, the more spread out the shell pattern gets, especially in range. At about 2km+, it gets pretty close to the spread of an off-board battery, especially if there's a bit of a breeze about.

Funny thing, that. . .

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pzman:

Maybe due range? The on map arty has a lot less ground to cover and thus is less impacted by wind, and other aspects of traviling through the air, I would guess.

That does not really account for the discrepency. If the weather is the same for both on-map and off-map assets then the fall of shells should be the same for both IF proper measures are taken to compensate for range and shell flight time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Redwolf:

If Tero would learn to quote right so that he wouldn't let Moon's part appear as his in the quote, I would tell him that with direct control like in the CM HQ situation the spotter can adjust each individual tube. In the remote FO situation there is additional overhead and/or only adjustment of the battery as a whole.

True. But that then leads to the guestion about the aiming poing. Howcome the aim point for individual tubes in a battery is the same but the fall pattern would have them sitting on top of each other ? smile.gif

For on-map assets you can simulate the 50% hit zone being in the same spot and have the fall patter not being the same for all.

The pattern for the indirect fire is far too wide in CMBB and CMAK, though.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moon:

Armoured Task Force/Brigade Combat team (written be an Arty Officer).

Decisive Action.

TACOPS.

Close Combat had the rounds landing the right way.

There is one fix that would improve it, and that is make the "sheaf" of the rounds land the right way. An arty barrage is designed to land perpendicular to the line of advance, rather than parrallel. I guess that is caused by the ballistics model though.

But it is easy to use, though frustrating to those who know what it sould be like.

Cheers

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Also, remember that you can't just slap the carriage of even a 75mm IG down on the ground and start popping off indirect fire. Given the higher projectile velocity and recoil (relative to mortars, that is) even light howizters would generally take far longer to set up well enough to get any reasonable level of accuracy with indirect fire.

Players are deluding themselves, though, if they think this should be a common, easy-to-use tactic in a battalion-level game like CM.

Generally speaking, yes. But that does not take into account different battle types. If we are told in defensive type battles both sides have had enough time to set up things like TRP's and other "time consuming" measures then one would imagine the on-map assets would be included in the fire plan.

Some things are much more visible from the air than they are from the ground (and vice versa). For example, any kind of fresh digging (such as a foxhole) tends to be easily spotted from the air due to the different color of the fresh earth, even if there are trees or other overhead cover. On the other side of the coin, terrain elements that offer very little concealment from ground observation, such as the shadow on the side of a building, make units virtually invisible from the air.

Having the air assets ALWAYS make a pass on a legit target instead of a, say, haystack is less than realistic. smile.gif

Oh, and as for the tighter fall of shot pattern of on-board mortars: Yes, try firing an on-map mortar at a range similar to what the off-map mortar batteries would presumably be firing. That is, a good 1.5km or more. You will find that the longer the range gets, the more spread out the shell pattern gets, especially in range. At about 2km+, it gets pretty close to the spread of an off-board battery, especially if there's a bit of a breeze about.

Funny thing, that. . .

OK. Now do the same with 4 or six tubes and what kind of results do you get if you use the same spot as aiming point ? ;)

On my last refresher training I specifically asked this from the mortar pukes and they told us they have to manipulate the piece to make the shells scatter from the aiming point, no matter what the range. Otherwise the shells would hit the same spot pratically all the time. But they are just ├╝berFinnish mortar pukes using WWII era 82mm Red Army mortars so what do they know about these things. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I'm looking forward to in any new artillery modeling is lethality. I don't know a heckuva lot about the real mechanics of calling in and adjusting artillery in WWII, but I do know that I generally call them in, when I do, far too close to my own troops and get away with it.

I have a feeling that I'm in for an educational surprise the first time I call for a 81mm fire mission 75m away from my forward elements and get it, in CM2.

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

True. But that then leads to the guestion about the aiming poing. Howcome the aim point for individual tubes in a battery is the same but the fall pattern would have them sitting on top of each other ? smile.gif

For on-map assets you can simulate the 50% hit zone being in the same spot and have the fall patter not being the same for all.

Sorry, but I can't figure out what you mean by this.

I'm not a redleg, but my understanding is that with battery fire, the guns aren't aimed at the same spot, but are usually aimed in parallel trajectories so as to give a natural dispersal. Of course it would be possible to aim them so as to provide a converging sheaf focussed on a relatively small point. Such fire would be devastating...if it hit the target.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Sorry, but I can't figure out what you mean by this.

You are not the first one. smile.gif

For reference

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/sheafs.html

I'm not a redleg, but my understanding is that with battery fire, the guns aren't aimed at the same spot, but are usually aimed in parallel trajectories so as to give a natural dispersal.

This depends totally on the SOP of the army in guestion.

And "natural dispersal" means you have less shells on target. Naturally, the nature of the target is also a part of the equation.

To me the TRP is of little value if the firing method is not appropriate. You assing a point target and then fire by the hectare. smile.gif

Of course it would be possible to aim them so as to provide a converging sheaf focussed on a relatively small point. Such fire would be devastating...if it hit the target.

Moreover, such strikes should be limited in terms of number of shells and duration. And TOT is essential in this respect. Again, things largely dependent on the SOP and fire plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sand digger readily agrees that this is a great game, I've said it before, its just that in certain situations some hole in it really is a PITA. Try playing German in mid '41 against British Matilda tanks for example, you really need to use those 150mm on map pieces firing indirectly to at least slow them down, damage a gun or two.

Otherwise a game at in that situation is virtually unplayable as German against a competent opponent. Using 88's just makes it a shoot-em-up lottery, takes all the involvement out of it.

Perhaps what follows should be a separate topic but as a suggestion (which has probably been made before) could'nt static infantry be given a protection bonus after a couple of turns? To imitate their digging in or otherwise making protective arrangements as they did.

The infantry vulnerability situation needs a bit of tweaking in some other situations too, a bit less aimless crawling around under fire and more running to cover for a start.

Enough, back to the PBEM's smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there much evidence of indirect fire being used to KO tanks that the current artillery modules can't be used for?

If you have sufficient defilade to hide a howitzer behind, doesn't that mean that you've got enough cover to set up a reverse slope defence with your 88's?

Certain situations were a PITA. War isn't meant to be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just seen a Korean War documentary featuring tanks parked up on sloped earth ramps and firing as artillery, I'm wondering when someone is going to complain that HQs can't spot for indirect tank fire.

BTW does anyone know how widespread the practice of setting tanks up in an artillery-like role was? Was it used in WWII as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

And "natural dispersal" means you have less shells on target.

That depends entirely on the size of the target. Indirect artillery in the WW II period was an area, not a precision weapon. It was intended to saturate a given area with HE, not hit point targets. That's what your on-board, direct fire weaponry was for.

Granted, CM doesn't depict area fire very well either...

shakehead.gif

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...