AI's Usage of FOs

[Guest grunto]

From another thread:

--Those HT's were devastating to the attacking Brits. The Brit AI got so pissed that it dropped smoke on the village for about 3 turns. Me, I would have dropped HE on the damn village just to get revenge.

--

In my opinion the AI-controlled FOs should stay out of enemy LOS, particularly anything other than an 81mm mortar, and drop HE instead of smoke.

My understanding is that if the FO is in enemy LOS and calling in fire, that it takes less time to fire for effect (FFE) and that the fire itself is more accurate.

However as a player of this game against both the AI and PBEM opponents I've personally been hiding my FOs, ever since my first attempt as Americans in the VOT Gold Demo game. In that I put the 105 FOs in German LOS and they proceeded to get picked apart.

With that kind of valuable firepower I've hidden those teams from then on. I'm willing to take the extra time and loss of accuracy in order to at least get off a shot, which brings me to a discussion on the AI usage of FOs.

In an 'Ardennes' scenario of my own design, the Germans are moving up a road with heavy mud and rough terrain on both sides, going up on one side and down on the other. The infantry are having a heckuva time slogging through the mud on the sides of the road, attacking town after town in a string of 3 towns, the last behind a river with a deep gorge and 3 bridges leading into it, a rail bridge (a rail line runs along the road), the road bridge, and a wooden 'foot bridge.' The only ford across the river is to the far left/south, and that's a heckuva lot of mud to slog through.

Anyway the Germans are making their way up the road and the Americans have something like 4 155mm FOs, 2 105mm FOs, and 4 81mm FOs.

It's dark and foggy so the visibility is about 35 meters.

So I'm wondering why, in these conditions the Germans are running into American FOs along the road, from town-to-town.

I think that the AI FOs should play it safe and hide out way to the rear and drop HE in on likely enemy routes of advance or known positions.

Once when the Germans had cleared one of the towns, the Americans started dropping smoke into the town. If that had been a full slew of HE the Germans would have taken grevious casualties.

I would 'like' the AI to drop a full load of artillery on my troops. Scenarios like this are used to attempt to depict the conditions of the German attack situation at the time. The Americans dropped a lot of artillery on the Germans in the battle of the Bulge. I gave the American AI the units to drop a serious barrage on the Germans and in playtesting it against them the main barrages never seem to be more than the 81mm variety.

The rest is usually smoke.

My German 2x210mm and 1x150mm Rocket FOs with max ammo always drop their load, that's for sure.

When I'm American testing it out the Germans are stymied, first on the ground, then against those heavy FO units.

In another scenario where the Americans have 3 81mm FOs with 200 rounds each, the AI often tries to smoke a force of halftracks, armored cars, and StuGs. I'm always sitting there at that point, thanking my lucky stars but feeling cheated somehow that AI isn't giving me a bloody nose the same way I would any opponent, AI or PBEM, sitting in the open with 8-10 vehicles, none heavier than a StuG. That's 81mm meat!

Excuse me I get excited.

Perhaps I'm expecting too much of the AI, but I'm simply wondering about the possibility of BTS patching CM to allow the AI FOs to take a less risky approach and in so doing make for a more difficult and perhaps 'realistic' game for the human player.

I would rather have the AI FO fire designed into the scenario be used by the as area fire HE and not smoke.

Perhaps an additional lockdown rule for FOs - that they can't move until an enemy unit enters their LOS - would be all it would take. Then scenario designers could lock them into place. And then the AI could make sure the locked-down FOs tried to call in area fire barrages from their positions, perhaps waiting for some series of conditions to occur, or simply targeting 'something, somewhere' from the 'get-go.'

As it is I'm always disappointed when I capture an FO in a place I consider it to have no business being.

I just took a closer look and in the Bulge scenario on turn 6 of 90 in ~35 meters of visibility the captured FO was a 155mm. That's the sort of AI handling of FOs I would like to see tweaked.

Does anyone else here as a general rule hide their FOs most of the time?

FWIW

Andy

[Fionn]

Hell no, my FOs fight it out in the front lines or, at most 100 metres behind them.

I ABHOR calling down arty out of LOS.

[Guest grunto]

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

Hell no, my FOs fight it out in the front lines or, at most 100 metres behind them.

I ABHOR calling down arty out of LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I trust you're better at it than the AI is =grin=

Andy

[Los]

Well it's a long ramble and I'm not sure I agree with you. I've been playing this game for a damn long time and almost NEVER see an enemy FO. Likewise I almost never piss away valuable artillery on low odds unobserved fire missions. I just make sure my FO is in a safe place and he usually does his job just fine, taking the occasional casualty of course.

Are these scenarios you designed? Or its sounds like you made some test scenarios. How you design your scenarios particularly type, parameters, VCs, forces and maps goes a very long way in determining whether the AI acts in a manner one considers stupid or smart. Why have all that heavy FO firepower and have a scenario with 35 meter visibility, night and fog? Unless you are gong to make heavy use of TRPs then all that arty is a waste.

And as for smoke there's a recurring theme among some that the AI (or anyone for that matter) is being idiotic for laying smoke when it could be using HE. The AI is most likely laying smoke to further some (to you at least) unfathomable part of it's own plan. It doesn't have to make sense to you it only has to make sense to your opponent. (Such as it's more concerned at the moment from taking fire from point X than it is with destroying whatever is at point X) Smoke is very avaluable in this game and I normally see the AI make very good use of it.

Los

[Guest grunto]

One thing is for certain here in my mind at least.

In many situations the AI would be a lot better off dropping HE than smoke.

Also, with 35 meters of visibility, do you guys still wait until the FOs are in enemy LOS before calling missions?

So perhaps I personally 'have it all wrong' by using area fire, but I still say that the AI doesn't handle FOs very well.

Andy

[Fionn]

It wouldn't be all that unusual for me to have FOs within 50 metres of the enemy. 100 metres, often, within 50 metres, sometimes.

If it isn't observed fire it isn't worth calling.

[Los]

With 35m of visibility what's the point of having all that artillery in your scenario in the first place it's pretty much just a waste of rounds particularly since any even half way reliable contact is going to be within danger close of your own forces. In actual practice, they normally wouldn't even shoot unless they had either Prereg or TRPs pre-plotted in that situation for fire.

So if you are gong to make assumptions based on how you think things should happen vs real battles (not saying that you are doing this per se) then your scenario (given those conditions) sould have either much less artillery OR a lot more TRPs (Which would actually make thing's interesting.)

Los

[MadDog0606]

Since it was my HT post that was quoted I get to put in my 2 cents .

I usually play QB's (I love that part of CM!!) with a village has the center of attention. When on the attack or a meeting engagement my FO's usually travel behind the lead platoon. I find the closest hill or cover (woods, scattered trees, two story house, regular house, anything but out in the open) that has a good field of view to the piece of real estate I want as my own. I place my FO at this location. I then send up a platoon to find and fix the enemy. If there are enough enemy to warrant some special loving attention (I don't waste no arty on a squad of troopies) I fire a turn or two of arty on them to make them go for cover and then attack with overwhelming force. I dont waste arty on individual buildings that are causing me trouble. I'll let a tank or assault gun level the damn thing. If I'm attacking a hill I'll lay both HE and smoke on the top and the reverse slope (even if I don't see anybody) before I send my little guys running up to the top. And if I have any tanks at least one tank is going up the hill right behind them with the other tanks covering.

I do the same with the mortars of a company. I place all the mortars with the heavy weapons platoon leader (or the company commander if he has a higher command rating). I then follow the lead platoons with these mortars and if the lead platoons run into trouble, all I do is bring up the mortar commander so that he can spot for them.

On the defense I usually place the FO's on hills with some kind of cover or in two story buildings on the edge (closest to the enemy) of a town/village so that they can have good fields of view to the likley avenues of attack. The FO's always have one squad of troops or a machine gun with them for protection. I only fire when I see a high concentration of units. And I hide EVERYBODY until the enemy gets close enough for me to do some damage.

Now, my greatest fear in this game is the Allied arty (HE not smoke) because I know they have a lot of it and have had it used on me to great effect when playing the Germans. Now to get back to the quote from my post. I had no problem with the AI using smoke on me (I think the AI lost because of it's use of just smoke rounds though). I think it (the TACAI) should have thrown in some HE with the smoke. During the game, when I heard those arty rounds coming in, I thought for sure my platoons in town were goners (besides saying SH*T!! out load when I heard the arty whisling in). I was happy has all get out that it was only smoke because I knew by the sound being made by the arty that it was big stuff and if the AI was using it as smoke that was less rounds of HE that it could use on me.

I understand why the AI used smoke. I would have done the same thing. But I would have also taken revenge and added a little HE to the mix. I know taking revenge is not logical and a waste of HE, but a lot of little Brits were killed by those HT's and I would have wanted some payback. The way the QB map was generated there was very little cover on the approachs to the town on the TACAIs'left, other then the sides of the road coming into the town. There was cover to the TACAIs' right and he did use this. But the damage to the TACAIs' troops (mortars, MG's, and armor) had already been done by the time it unloaded the smoke on me. Because of the lose of armor and mortars the TACAI gave up on the town and concentrated the rest of it's troops around the tall building and church (a victory location) that was to far away from me that I didn't bother taking. Until I tried toward the end of the game, and even then I didn't have enough troop strength to take it away from the TACAI.

[This message has been edited by MadDog0606 (edited 08-02-2000).]

[Fionn]

Well, it seems clear, the AI didn't add a little HE into the mix because it was conserving rounds. Youre little "revenge" habit is probably going to cost you mucho battles when PBEMing since you NEED to ration your arty to cause the maximum effect and just a "little HE" simply isn't going to do that if mixed in with mucho smoke.

[Guest grunto]

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

With 35m of visibility what's the point of having all that artillery in your scenario in the first place it's pretty much just a waste of rounds particularly since any even half way reliable contact is going to be within danger close of your own forces. In actual practice, they normally wouldn't even shoot unless they had either Prereg or TRPs pre-plotted in that situation for fire.

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

doh!!! Ok there you go. The FOs need TRPs in that low-visibility scenario. I stand corrected on that count.

However I still am shocked and amazed every time the AI drops a bunch of smoke on my troops when I know good and well that HE would be devestating at that very moment.

In any case are you guys saying you've never seen the AI FOs behave in a manner less than stellar?

Andy

[Guest grunto]

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

Well, it seems clear, the AI didn't add a little HE into the mix because it was conserving rounds. Youre little "revenge" habit is probably going to cost you mucho battles when PBEMing since you NEED to ration your arty to cause the maximum effect and just a "little HE" simply isn't going to do that if mixed in with mucho smoke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me put it to you this way, Fionn: Have you ever thought that the AI was using its FOs in a sub-optimal manner? In other words, is there any room for improvement here or is this a moot subject as far as you're concerned?

Andy

[MadDog0606]

I don't think the AI was conserving rounds. It fired smoke into that village for three consecutive turns. And it wasn't a little bit of smoke. That smoke covered the village so much so that my platoons could no longer see the AI troops to shot them. That would have been a smart move on the AIs part IF the AI had troops close enough to the village to take advantage of the smoke. The AI did not have troops close enough to take advantage of the smoke and it lost the battle. The AI still had a lot of troops on the its right side of the map. And if they were close enough could have done some major damage.

I know that it takes a couple of turns for the arty to show up. By the second turn of smoke the AI had already lost all but one tank and the majority of its troops on its left. It should have just withdrawn what was left of its troops on its left side and then conserved its arty. But it didn't conserve its arty because it didn't use arty on me when I attacked the church toward the end of the battle. It seemed the AI wasted all its arty smoking the village.

Don't get me wrong. I am not unhappy with the TACAI. Usually (80% of the time) it uses arty on me to its advantage. This had been the only QB/Scenario so far where I was confused on the way the TACAI used its arty.

Also, my fingers ran away from me. I would not have mixed a little HE with the smoke. I more then likley would have shot one turn of smoke followed by a turn of HE. And I would not have shot the HE unless I knew where the BAD GUYS were.

And your right. My revenge habit will get me in trouble sooner or latter. But I don't exercise that habit much. I know that arty is precious (even if you have a lot) and it is not to be wasted. I also don't do PBEM because I don't belive I'm good enough yet. And I need to get over my bad habits from Steel Panther games. I still need more practice playing the TACAI in CM in all environments. Only after I consistently whup ass on the TACAI (not any time soon) will I feel comfortable and confident enough to PBEM.

[Guest grunto]

I've been thinking about this and believe that part of the problem is the level of the players.

There are some of us who think our FOs are going to get shot up and area fire has worked more often than not; at least to where it is better than trying to gain LOS but getting eliminated instead.

It sounds like there are those here who are very skilled in the use of FOs and to them area fire is a waste of ammo. For someone on my level though area fire is better than nothing at all. Perhaps I will experiment now with the LOS thing, first with 81mm FOs and then with larger calibres.

I'm still interested on players' opinions on the AI use of FOs and whether they think it could be improved upon. Little things like this should be investigated in case they are found to be wanting and could be easily improved upon.

At the very least could Charles and Steve consider using more HE and less smoke with these units when AI-controlled?

Ok I suppose I've put in more than my .02 on this one.

Thanks for your input

Andy

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

And as for smoke there's a recurring theme among some that the AI (or anyone for that matter) is being idiotic for laying smoke when it could be using HE. The AI is most likely laying smoke to further some (to you at least) unfathomable part of it's own plan. It doesn't have to make sense to you it only has to make sense to your opponent. (Such as it's more concerned at the moment from taking fire from point X than it is with destroying whatever is at point X) Smoke is very avaluable in this game and I normally see the AI make very good use of it.

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your observations, though I confess that in the heat of the moment I often forget to use smoke when it might be of benefit.

I had a strange thing happen tonight in a QB I am currently playing. I had spotted a German squad in a foxhole in some trees and several of my squads were firing at it and I had nother whole platoon moving into postion to rush it in a couple more turns. Among the units providing suppressive fire was a 60mm mortar crew. They fired several rounds of HE and then on their own initiative fired three or four rounds of smoke. This puzzled me for a number of reasons.

1. I hadn't ordered it.

2. They weren't running low on HE yet, so they had plenty left to shoot.

3. The smoke was in no obvious way helpful to my troops. They were taking no fire from the German squad, which was to that point fairly thoroughly suppressed. Indeed, the smoke seemed to have blocked off one of my squads that had been shooting at them. So as near as I can tell, the smoke isn't helpful at this point at all.

I guess this is just another instance of **** Happens™. But it was a new one on me.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

It wouldn't be all that unusual for me to have FOs within 50 metres of the enemy. 100 metres, often, within 50 metres, sometimes.

If it isn't observed fire it isn't worth calling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect you are considerably more versed than I at the nuances of protecting your FOs. I confess that after a bad early experience, I tend to be a bit gun shy where they are concerned.

As for unobserved fire being worthless, I cordially disagree. I find area fire very handy for discouraging enemy movement into a piece of terrain I am interested in, or if they are already there, either flushing them out or keeping their heads down long enough for me to work in some infantry to do the job.

Of course, observed fire is deadlier to the enemy and my first preference. But I don't regard area fire as inevitably a waste of powder.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 08-03-2000).]

[Los]

A few further points:

As for the AI mixing smoke and HE, while it's not a bad idea right now the program only supports one battery firing one type of round in any given fire mission (Which is realistic)so you would need two seperate FOs to pull off something like that.

Another nice use for a turn of mortar fire is to strip crew exposed status from enemy armor. Sometimes you even catch a few crewman and kill them which is nice. Even a lowly 50mm can catch tankers unawares in this fashion.

RE: Your own mortars firing smoke on their own accord. I think I've only seen this happen once in all the battles I've played. And it happened the other night. (It was a 251/2 that did it). In this case the mortar laid some smoke to prevent another unit from firing against it. The smoke didn't further MY cause much but on the other hand that 251/2 survived the whole game so I didn't reprimand them too much.

"In any case are you guys saying you've never seen the AI FOs behave in a manner less than stellar?"

I guess for me I think the AI is handling it's iindirect fire pretty well, as for actual FOs I don't recall seeing that many. HOWEVER. I'm not one that plays eth game where I watch the reruns fifty times from every possible pov and angle to find out whate each guy is doing. If that was the case I might see more FO idiocy waltzing around. Normally I have a plan and I implement it, I watch the battle as it unfolds and only maybe four or five times in a game will I go back and watch a replay again so I'm not at the microlevel of analyzing the battle. (As a battalion commander or TF commander I wouldn't be doing this anyway) Though at critical points in the battle I do take keen interest in details.

[Fionn]

"Have you ever thought that the AI was using its FOs in a sub-optimal manner? In other words, is there any room for improvement here or is this a moot subject as far as you're concerned?"

Oh there is definitely room for improvement. There is room for improvement in every facet of CM as more research becomes available, more CPU power becomes available and graphics cards evolve. OTOH I don't think that this particular issue is a problem. I think you'd find that the vast majority of good players would act in exactly the same manner as the AI and consider unaimed rounds ( inevitable given that the AI has just smoked the village) a waste of rounds.

" I more then likley would have shot one turn of smoke followed by a turn of HE. And I would not have shot the HE unless I knew where the BAD GUYS were."

An absolute waste of ammo. 1 turn of HE arty is barely worth firing unless it is in the 150mm+ range (unless you are purposely going for a slow attritional style of arty usage... it doesn't sound like this is the case here though). Also, IF you fired HE first and THEN smoke you could fire aimed HE and by simply switching the sequence of the ammo your effectiveness will increase by a good 50%. Your SOP is highly sub-optimal.

Michael,

Here's my simply viewpoint...

I have x number of artillery volleys. IF I fire all those volleys using observed fire then their on-target rate its likely to be at least twice as high as if I fired using unobserved fire.

Hence, using unobserved fire reduces the effectiveness of my arty by half. Or, in other words, my arty is only killing half as many enemy as it could be killing.

And in conclusion...

I've surprised and killed MANY more FOs when playing against humans then I've killed FOs commanded by the AI. IMO the AI actually makes better use of its FOs than the majority of humans I've played against. I really think that a lot of people could improve their game by observing what the AI does and imitating it. Smoke is used far too little on the battlefield by most players.

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 08-03-2000).]

[MadDog0606]

Fionn said:

"An absolute waste of ammo. 1 turn of HE arty is barely worth firing unless it is in the 150mm+ range (unless you are purposely going for a slow attritional style of arty usage... it doesn't sound like this is the case here though). Also, IF you fired HE first and THEN smoke you could fire aimed HE and by simply switching the sequence of the ammo your effectiveness will increase by a good 50%. Your SOP is highly sub-optimal."

Well, at least you didn't call me an idiot and/or moron. I do appreciate that . And, I am still learning so do be gentle with me.

[Fionn]

. NP.

[Los]

Personally I think the best use of a smoke barrage is as follows.

I want to cross open or exposed avenue of approach (AA) X-RAY. AA X-RAY starts at jump off position Red (Wooded area behind a hill) and terminates in the woods at position BLUE. (BTW from BLUE I have a covered and concealed approach to the objective) The northern side of AA X-RAY is a map edge, no worries there. Position Blue has at least a squad or mroe defending it. The Southern side of AA X-RAY is exposed to other parts of the map where there are known and unknown enemy units which can place fire on portions of X-RAY.

What tools do I have available to deal with these threats? I have:

1. Direct fire support units (MGs, company mortars, tanks what not)

2. Indirect fire support unuits (FOs firing HE)

3. SMoke (Tank-fired mortar and IF units)

IMO usually I will put DF and IF HE right onto position BLUE which is the terminating spot of AA X-Ray. AFter all, my assault units will actually pass that point and the more softened up and suppressed it is the easier the crossing. Remember the shift your df suppression inland or elsewhere as your assault forces get close. Remember and understand the differnce between suppressive fire and killing fire. Let the killing be done up close by your assault forces, let the suppressing be done from far off.

Any other units that are both close and have a clear LOS to AA X-RAY will receive some DF/IF from the support units. Remember when trying to cover a force moving across some open area go for suppression not killing. Save that for when your assault forces are back under cover or in amongst the objective.

I will place smoke in the open area between AA XRAY and other potential interdiction areas. This is important: you use smoke more to block LOS to areas you want protected from observation than you do to placec on top of enemy units to block their LOS. (They can always move left or right repositioning away from the smoke) ..it's a matter of cutting off angles, the farther the smoke is away from the unit who's LOS you want to block, the less they can do about it. Let the smoke hit for a full turn and keep it coming for an extra turn. Most effective smoke is IF coming in guided from FOs. Smoke fired from on-map units especially tanks and assault guns is point fired and as soon as the exact point you designated as a smoke target is hit they will stop firing smoke. This could be after ten rounds (Good) or one round (BAD). Rely on your FO smoke. On map moratrs if used for smoke, can be point fire right on enemies you want to block.

Smoke should be placed so as to allow your support units to fire on targets, namely interdeict their fire not yeours which is not hard to do. Of course all the above guidelines can be broken as the situation dictates.

There's a lot more detail on this at CMHQ articles section under how to conduct attacks.

Los

[Guest grunto]

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

"Have you ever thought that the AI was using its FOs in a sub-optimal manner? In other words, is there any room for improvement here or is this a moot subject as far as you're concerned?"

Oh there is definitely room for improvement. There is room for improvement in every facet of CM as more research becomes available, more CPU power becomes available and graphics cards evolve. OTOH I don't think that this particular issue is a problem. I think you'd find that the vast majority of good players would act in exactly the same manner as the AI and consider unaimed rounds ( inevitable given that the AI has just smoked the village) a waste of rounds.

" I more then likley would have shot one turn of smoke followed by a turn of HE. And I would not have shot the HE unless I knew where the BAD GUYS were."

An absolute waste of ammo. 1 turn of HE arty is barely worth firing unless it is in the 150mm+ range (unless you are purposely going for a slow attritional style of arty usage... it doesn't sound like this is the case here though). Also, IF you fired HE first and THEN smoke you could fire aimed HE and by simply switching the sequence of the ammo your effectiveness will increase by a good 50%. Your SOP is highly sub-optimal.

Michael,

Here's my simply viewpoint...

I have x number of artillery volleys. IF I fire all those volleys using observed fire then their on-target rate its likely to be at least twice as high as if I fired using unobserved fire.

Hence, using unobserved fire reduces the effectiveness of my arty by half. Or, in other words, my arty is only killing half as many enemy as it could be killing.

And in conclusion...

I've surprised and killed MANY more FOs when playing against humans then I've killed FOs commanded by the AI. IMO the AI actually makes better use of its FOs than the majority of humans I've played against. I really think that a lot of people could improve their game by observing what the AI does and imitating it. Smoke is used far too little on the battlefield by most players.

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 08-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok... all points well taken. I'm telling you though.... sometimes I'm glad when the AI is dropping smoke rather than HE upon me.

Andy

[Degrees of Frost]

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

It wouldn't be all that unusual for me to have FOs within 50 metres of the enemy. 100 metres, often, within 50 metres, sometimes.

If it isn't observed fire it isn't worth calling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Played a couple of Quick Battles over the last couple of evenings (have recieved the game at last Yay !) and applied that kind rule to my 81mm mortar spotters - in two seperate engagments they called in fire on targets approximately 70-75m ahead of themselves - did manage to break up the attacking panzergrenadiers and in second engagment forced the crew of a supporting halftrack ... but the FOs in both battles also managed to get whacked (1 casualty on both occasions) by stray rounds that landed on themselves and their screening infantry platoon (2-5 casualties in largely intact platoon - had the effect of routing one squad) advanced in a line 10-15m ahead of them (the FO's).

Should be noted that the spotters were regular and the battle was fought in fog - but the spotters had a green line to the target.

I don't know - 50m seems awfully close.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost:

I don't know - 50m seems awfully close.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, especially for anything larger than 81mm. Aside from the random short, you start to get within the blast radius of even on-target rounds. And random shorts aren't funny at all.

Michael

[Henri]

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

If it isn't observed fire it isn't worth calling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it worth calling down unobserved HE when I can see only a few of the enemy, but I strongly suspect that there are a lot of them dispersed in them woods, but I can't see them . In such cases, I usually see a number of enemy symbols indicating suspected enemies. In such cases, I have found that dropping area fire HE can decimate the enemy . Being unobserved causes no harm, since I want the shots to be scattered, having no clear idea of where the enemy is (or will be when the HE arrives in three or four minutes).

Such situations often arise when the enemy is on the offensive and is bringing his infantry forward through concealed pathways. If you can hit him just before he reaches his line of departure, you can sometimes cause heavy casualties.

Playing against the AI, I have had reinforcements decimated by the AI artillery before they had time to move , and other times, the AI kept lobbing artillery behind my advancing units . In both cases, I guessed that the AI was shooting at unobserved targets .

Henri