Arty LOS important question

[Thin Red Line]

Imagine that at the beginning of of game you order your FOs to target WITHOUT LOS critical points on the map were the ennemy is likely to hide. If after 1 turn or 2 the said FOs have reached a location WITH LOS on those points, will the accuracy of the bombing (that should arrive at this time, 2 or 3 minutes after the order):

1)be correlated with the new LOS status ?

2)or will it lack precision because the order was given before acquisition of LOS ?

3)What if you adjust fire when with LOS ?

I ask because if the answer is 1), you can save a precious time without loosing accuracy !

Side question : is this gamey ?

[L.Tankersley]

Once you have LOS to the target, accuracy should improve (and your countdown should run quicker, but I can't confirm this for sure).

I'm not sure what your question is about adjusting fire.

Given the artificialities already present in the artillery system, I don't think it's gamey at all.

[Thin Red Line]

My point about adjusting fire was in case there was not benefit from the fact that the spotter is now in LOS of his target, would an adjustment of fire help.

Since you tell me that the LOS has already an effect on accuracy, it is not needed anyway.

Thank for your answer.

[Sock Monkey]

And, conversely, let's say you're laying down a barrage with good LOS which is subsequently obscured by smoke. Does the accuracy of the barrage get worse at that point?

[Dschugaschwili]

This would need testing (which I can't do right now), but I guess that it's always the current LOS status that determines accuracy and delay. So moving into LOS would give you benefits, while getting smoked would penalize you.

I'm pretty certain though that while your spotter is moving, the target is assumed to be out of LOS at least as far as the delay is concerned.

But as I said, I'm not sure about any of my points.

Dschugaschwili

[lewallen]

i use 81mm spotters quite a bit, and i've noticed that when dropping smoke, the accuracy does not degrade after the smoke has obscured your initial aimpoint. if you adjust fire, however, and pick your initial aimpoint again (i.e. adjust fire to the same place you were already targeting), LOS disappears and the accuracy degrades appropriately.

one problem i've noticed with artillery smoke is that there is no "target wide" command for smoke like there is for HE. with the 81mm especially, but also with other arty, i like to drop it in a wider pattern to block larger areas. if you have a fairly high density map, it's not too hard to put your target behind a building or something to block your line of site, but then you get nailed with the longer countdown time. it'd be nice to have a target wide command to drop smoke in a larger pattern without having to artifically block LOS.

~sam

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by lewallen:

i use 81mm spotters quite a bit, and i've noticed that when dropping smoke, the accuracy does not degrade after the smoke has obscured your initial aimpoint.

If it's modeled after Real Life, it shouldn't degrade. In reality, the spotter calls in the mission and makes some initial adjustments based off of the spotting rounds. Once the rounds are striking the target, the spotter gives a "Fire for effect" command, at which point there is no need for further corrections (the guns or mortars just keep shooting along the same trajectory).

[willbell]

I regularly target off map artillery while it is not in LOS and then move the spotter to LOS in several moves. I'm convinced that once in LOS the strike becomes more accurate.

Here is another trick. I target the off map artillery several moves ahead in a location that seems likely. A couple of moves later my FO is in LOS and at that point I can move the target around a fairly wide area with only 15 or 20 seconds delay. From the enemies point of view it seems like I slapped them with heavy artillery the second they stepped out of the woods.

[Thin Red Line]

Good trick Willbell, i do that also.

Actually, ALL FO should have ALWAYS something targeted just in case, when countdown is low and nothing appears under target, just start again from scratch.

In real life , that would be of course difficult to explain to gunners : ''Please target those coordinates, i can see nothing there it's just in case !''

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

Good trick Willbell, i do that also.

Actually, ALL FO should have ALWAYS something targeted just in case, when countdown is low and nothing appears under target, just start again from scratch.

In real life , that would be of course difficult to explain to gunners : ''Please target those coordinates, i can see nothing there it's just in case !''

Not so difficult as you may think - usually you will choose target areas where you expect enemy presence is likely or which you think is a key location for your tactical planning. The described method of targeting is hence not much else then the usage of previously recorded targets. Unless your units are not surprised by enemy contact, your gunners will have recorded targets even BEFORE the battle starts. Unfortunately, in QBs you have not much chance of purchasing TRPs, so you must use this "trick".

[Thin Red Line]

Well it's even better if it can be done in RL !

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

Well it's even better if it can be done in RL !

hmmm.... actually that IS what happened IRL.

example: you have to defend a bridge - the only one along 50kms of river. you know enemy wants to cross the river. it is hence very likely he will try to take that bridge.

you send an artillery forward observer to measure coordinates, terrain, etc.

this data is recorded on a Recorded Target list, e.g. like this:

Number: Coord. Description: Status:

VT0001 5890/6410 bridge #43 UNSAFE

all other artillery batteries now have the required data to fire barrages on this target at every time, even without LOS.

CM does not properly simulate this - a defect which IMO should be taken into consideration for CM:BB...

[Thin Red Line]

But, as you seem ressourceful on this subject, IRL, do the FO need to have the target in LOS to calculate the coordinates, or is a map sufficient ?

Because in CM when i order a barrage on a zone out of my LOS it means that i have at least a knowledge of the area, hence a map. I think your exeample is good for a bridge (precisely located on every map) but more unlikely for a patch of wood, or a small hill in the landscape.

[Radar]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

But, as you seem ressourceful on this subject, IRL, do the FO need to have the target in LOS to calculate the coordinates, or is a map sufficient ?

Because in CM when i order a barrage on a zone out of my LOS it means that i have at least a knowledge of the area, hence a map. I think your exeample is good for a bridge (precisely located on every map) but more unlikely for a patch of wood, or a small hill in the landscape.

Oh, contraire! Map quality can vary widely and especially for higher scale topo maps, accurately plotting bridges and roads is impossible and unnecesary. What ya can get from these maps is mostly general purpose elevation datum (good enough to get in the ballpark, usually): Called in horizontal coordinates are plotted and range is determined. Battery A elevation is at X meters and Target D elevation is scaled at Y meters on a topo map and also the highest intervening terrain is H elevation determined at Z meters from Battery A. All of this data is fairly rough, but this isn't a rocket trip to the moon. Woods, bridges, whatever it is you'ld still need a visual link to get adjustments down on target, large adjustments might be nessesary (especially considering firing batteries with 4 guns).

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

But, as you seem ressourceful on this subject, IRL, do the FO need to have the target in LOS to calculate the coordinates, or is a map sufficient ?

Because in CM when i order a barrage on a zone out of my LOS it means that i have at least a knowledge of the area, hence a map. I think your exeample is good for a bridge (precisely located on every map) but more unlikely for a patch of wood, or a small hill in the landscape.

Radar's notes are quite correct. Especially the maps are not very reliable. E.g. at the Western Front, the map commonly used both by Axis and Allies was a French map from 1922, hence already 20 years old, and not frequently updated. You can imagine that terrain and towns change their face over the time.

Even worse in the East, where Germans had to use old and not reliable captured Russian maps (nobody has ever seen before the necessity to create detailed and accurate maps of the incedibly huge woods, swamps and steppes).

As a result, terrain reconnaissance was very important in every question regarding ground force actions.

There were important differences in how the different forces have directed their artillery.

For Germans, the FO was a specialist who did a preliminary calculation, which then was refined in the battery FDC. German artillery hence was very precise, but quite slow in response.

The British had sufficient artillery support to risk a waste of ammo. His target calculation was VERY sketchy. But usually their FOs could quickly call in several batteries on the same target. So their arty fire was not very precise, but very quick in response. The lack of accuracy was compensated by the mass of shells.

US artillery forces were intermediate - they had an interesting system of prepared terrain calculations for western Europe as a base for their calculations. US arty fire was hence medium accurate and medium quick.

Once the barrage has started, the FO can adjust the fire, given he has LOS. You know those "barrage starting/testing rounds" from CM.

Basically, artillery can fire at whatsoever location without LOS - the question is: how accurate is the fire? CM simulates this quite well.

However, to "record" a target, you need of course a FO with LOS, who determines the location, the coordinates, altitude and the shell flight trajectory.

BUT this can happen days, weeks or even months before your CM battle starts - once the target is recorded you (i.e. each FO available in your Division) know how to fire at it, and can do so without LOS or even without spotter ("General Support" instead of "Direct/Tactical Support").

And usually, those recorded Target Reference Points are not the known CM TRP, but commonly a target area of 200-250 meter radius - at least those created by Divisional or Corps attached artillery units. You can simulate those "real" TRPs by placing 9 CM TRPs in a radial or rectangular shape, each spacing 100 m from the neighboured one (In this context, the CM TRP is rather a "tile" of a real TRP).

[Monty]

Imagine this for a future CM version :

When you start the battle, you have/see only a very ROUGH map of the terrain, also mucho ?'s on spots where bridges and the like are supposed.

You send out a Recon unit or FO and when they have crossed certain terrain sections, those sections are becoming ACCURATE on the map ( with different color )

Offcours in RL , there would be a larger time difference, but it would be much better then the "god mode" map we have now.

Monty aka Moose

[Monty]

No comments on my suggestion ??

[SpazManOught]

I think that's a good idea, you could sorta have area's not in view as 3d white topo maps with grid lines and stuff that are slightly incorrect, when you get line of sight they turn into the proper map, would be cool if it went back to the topo map when the area goes back outa sight. Defenders could have proper maps, and attackers crap maps (could even pay say 100 pts to get a better map of the area).

What I relly want to know is why it takes longer for arty to come down on an uspotted area.

"Target this area, but I must inform you that I dont have direct sight"

"No line of sight aye, we'll get the slow newbie gunners on it right away, it'll take twice as long for the fire support to come in is that ok?"

"Sure thank's, and tell the Wife I love her as were all gona be dead now ass wipe, I said DEAD, D E A D. But if it gives the newbies some practice then thats ok I guess"

Is this to stop gameyness? Or is this realistic.

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Monty:

No comments on my suggestion ??

hmmm.... actually, IRL you would have performed sufficient terrain reconnaissance previously. Your intelligence officer has possibly provided you with photos from the air. You can interrogate local civilians. Korps and Divisions have specialists for terrain survey and updating maps. etc....

Unless you are not moving 50km deep into unknown enemy hinterland or firing artillery without FO, I would say on CM scale you have a quite good idea of the terrain.

Finally, if you know there IS a bridge, it is not so important if it at location XY or 50 meters to the left of it.

What indeed would be interesting is a random function for infrastructure STATUS, e.g. you know there is a bridge, but you don't know if it is damaged or not. There might be a road, but a bomber has dropped a 250 lb bomb on it, so getting closer you notice a huge crater.

In this terms even more interesting would be a notable impact of infrastructural status on troop movement. Some examples:

- tanks cannot use a small bridge (weight)

- tanks cannot use **-damaged bridges

- moving with 5 tanks over a *-damaged bridge increases damage to **

- moving over damaged bridges creates a random possibility for a bridge collapse, esp. when heavy assets

- craters on roads can deny vehicles to use the roads

- when moving around road obstacles, such as craters or fortification, vehicles must extremely slow down movement speed

- etc...