Off map arty and realism

[Gen-x87H]

I remember a long thread from many months ago dealing with off-map arty.

Some people talked about how CMs off map arty tends to come in much faster than it would in real life. I think somebody quoted it at being more like 7-9 mins minimum. And depending on the size of the arty or who owns it can take much longer.

So my question would be. Is the fact that one can bring down arty on a target within 1-4 mins leading to some unhistorical use of the deadly brew?

Opinions?

Gen

[JasonC]

Probably so, yes. There are conflicting reports on this. FOs and artillery types typically focus on the efficiency of execution from radio call to shells on target, and put the figure close to what CM shows.

But in practice, the AARs are full of cases where the artillery is much slower than that, and where it typically comes in bigger "lots" but delivered less accurately. You see battalion shoots (in CM, 3 FOs at a time), wider areas of effect, (400 yards considered a close barrage e.g.). But you also see far more confusion - inability to get the artillery on the radio, wrong frequencies, batteries firing other missions.

CM players use their artillery like a scalpel. They are very concerned with preserving ammunition and getting the most out of each shell, because off board artillery is expensive (since it is so effective, that is somewhat justified) and severely ammo limited. They almost always fire tight sheaf at well located infantry targets, typically a platoon or more. They walk the shells every minute or two to avoid "dodges" and the stretch the ammo load with slower firing (e.g 4-8 shells per minute with 155mm). Infantry on the ground runs to get away from the tiny beaten area where shells are actually falling.

This is not how it was typically used in the real deal. The pattern was typically more like what you get from a "wide" or an unobserved location fire mission in CM. The barrage point of impact was not shifted around so frantically.

And then, they did not sweat so much over ammo expenditure. They threw a lot more shells from whole battalions in wide sheafs. Making games like dodging essentially impossible, careful tracking with minute-by-minute shifts unnecessary, and "slow drizzles" to conserve ammo something reserved for "harassment and interdiction" (H&I) fires, meant to slow enemy movement and rattle the enemy more than anything else. Shells were not scarce, like they are in CM, and the artillery did not sweat putting each one so close to a confirmed target at just the right instant.

TRPs are a different matter, though. Artillery did use registrations and concentrations like that as an integrated part of defense set ups. Sometimes by single batteries (registrations), sometimes with whole battalions or more (concentrations). The area targeted was typically wider than a CM TRP, which is a single point with typically a 40x80 yard beaten zone from one battery. Actually concentrations were often more like 200x200 yards.

You'd get a more realistic sense of the limited responsiveness but greater "weight" of WW II artillery if you required all fire missions to be "shot" unobserved. FOs would not move around on the map, but go in some safe spot in the rear and use "map fire", effectively. That would give wide sheafs to everything expect fire at TRPs. You might then require that 2 TRPs not be within 100 yards of each other, and that no more than 1 battery at a time fire at any given TRP. (So, to fire several, like a concentration, you'd need a larger "string" of TRPs).

Then also reduce the cost of the artillery modules. To something like 2/3 to 1/2 what they are now. Encourage people to use them 3 at a time (how, other than saying it or requiring it, is less clear). You'd see a lot more HE flying, but at wider areas. Each shell would do far less, but there would be more of them.

Artillery would be club rather than a scalpel. Blind fire would be much more common, because the sheafs would be wide enough to cover large areas, the shells would be available for it, and close time coordination with target intel would be impractical in response time terms.

It is very common in the AARs to see the artillery shell an wide area heavily for a longer period than in CM, and other arms follow up afterward - instead of both interacting on a minute-by-minute time scale.

Fundamentally, the high cost of shells and *dependable* rapid response (the clearest case is retargeting a mission ordered minutes ago every 60 seconds, sometimes after the shells would already be in the air) are the unrealistic aspects of CM artillery. They combine to create strong incentives to scalpel use. Blind fire corrects the second, but would make artillery too ineffective at present CM prices, if the first isn't also addressed.

One might also addess the known relationship that bigger HE is better at the current CM prices. Say, over 155mm the price stays the same, 155mm, 150mm, and 5.5 inch the price is -15%, between that and 105mm (exclusive) is -25%, 105mm and 25 lber -35%, and under 88mm 1/2 price. With all fire unobserved. That also encourages use of the more common field and light artillery types. Light mortar barrages would be very cheap and cover wide areas, but thinly.

Also, as an afterthought, CM artillery lets players make big smoke screens too easily. Limited players to 2 minutes (and change) of off board smoke from one firing battery for the game. Any battery they want.

A fine subject - thanks for raising it (again). I hope this is useful.

[ June 03, 2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Redwolf]

I think artilley should be more random.

Instead of the current variation of 2 or 3 minutes, why not 2-10 instead? Volleys or shots seriously off target on a random basis. Outright bombing the wrong place. Not stopping to shoot when you ask for. Shooting wrong ammunition, e.g. smoke (ok, CM models that for tanks ).

We have it in airplanes, and it's probably too much in airplanes, but for artillery it isn't enough so. I believe the things I listed are entirely realistic and that the current high-reliability artillery is less realistic.

And the farther the battery is away in the command chain, the more random it is. That would balance the better effectivity and efficiency of large-caliber artillery we have now.

[JasonC]

But if you don't also make e.g. the field caliber artillery less expensive, then you will just remove it from the battlefield. With present shell costs, if you can't place them just where they are wanted you can't pay the cost of the battery. I agree there is too much ability to place them just where wanted, but the current prices (especially for the lighter stuff, 105mm and below) are only sensible with that degree of responsiveness. Those prices were never balanced for slower, less dependable artillery. Two related changes can make artillery a club instead of a scalpel. Just one and people flat won't use it.

[ June 03, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Pak40]

Jason,

I totally agree with your thoughts about realistic WWII artillery using wide sheafs with huge amounts of ammo and about how most CM players use tight sheafs to get the most out of every round.

Maybe a solution to the this unrealistic use of artillery would be something like the following:

Currently, CM players but a set number of shells. For example, a U.S. 81mm FO has 200 shells. Instead of buying a set number of shells, the CM player should be buying an abstract number of artillery units, much like an infantry squad has 40 ammo units.

With these artillery units, the CM player has the choice of a wide or tight sheaf. With a tight sheaf, the artillery units are expended at a normal rate. But, with a wide sheaf the units are only expended at 1/2 the rate.

This will make a tight sheaf more expensive because the artillery points will run down at a quicker rate. The wide sheaf will have more appeal because of the overall larger number of shells that will fall.

NOTE: the rate that the shells fall will remain constant, whether wide or tight sheaf. Only the abstract artillery points will decrease slower for a wide sheaf.

For example - a U.S. 105mm FO constantly using a tight sheaf would use all of his ammo with 3 turns totaling 100 rounds fired. If the same FO were to constantly use a wide sheaf, then he would expend 200 rounds over 6 turns.

The player would have the option of changing the sheaf type from turn to turn with minor penalty.

What are your thoughts?

[ June 03, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Pak40]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think artilley should be more random.

Instead of the current variation of 2 or 3 minutes, why not 2-10 instead? Volleys or shots seriously off target on a random basis. Outright bombing the wrong place. Not stopping to shoot when you ask for. Shooting wrong ammunition, e.g. smoke (ok, CM models that for tanks ).

Yes, I agree. This would also account for telephone lines being cut by opposing artillery, a thing that happened all to often in battle. Officers would constantly have to send runners to find the break in the line and repair it.

[Gen-x87H]

JasonC:

Wow that was a great response with a great plan to make arty more like real life.

I enjoyed reading it and hope Battlefront takes a look at Arty in future editions of the game.

I only wondered about it because most of the games I play tend to have people using arty in what seems like unhistorical game play.

Basically running the arty in front of thier forces so when contact is made arty falls on that target within 1 minute.

When coupled with fast response times it seemed to be unrealistic from a non-military background player like myself.

I would imagine in real life the infantry would run into contact then call in a fire support mission. All this taking at least 5-10 mins. Not have the guns constantly changing to follow the infantry.

Your point about the concentration of the arty compared to real life is an interesting one. I never thought about it being highly concentrated because of the costs involved.

Looking at your reponse you have me convinced that lower cost, less accurate arty may be a way to go.

Gen

[Moon]

Actually, artillery is one of the most tweaked aspects between CMBO and CMBB, and in CMBB its workings are not far away from what Jason described, including prep-bombardments (ordered during the setup phase to strike a certain location at a certain time), required use of TRPs to keep command delays within reasonable limits and drastically tweaked delay times for fire outside of LOS. And much more... but you'll have to wait a little more for a full bone

[Gpig]

EDIT: Ahhh, never mind. Moon said it all.

Gpig

[ June 03, 2002, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[Dave H]

With CM:BB including tweaked artillery, armed gun crews, improved machine gun effects, RUNNING with a machine gun, damaged buildings, improved graphics, etc etc etc, I'm beginning to suspect these guys don't want to leave us anything to whine about.

Then I guess we'll all play CM:BB all the time and live happily ever after and the Forum will turn into a ghost town.

"That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, boy."

[PiggDogg]

Great thread.

Damn. In CMBB, I won't be able to use 105s, 120s, & 155s like a scalpel.

However, I shall make CMBB more accurate.

Cheers, Richard :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pak40:

What are your thoughts?

Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I couldn't make any sense of this at all. In fact it almost seems contrary to sense.

A battery or battalion would have so much ammo to shoot. Whether it would shoot it in a wide or tight sheaf would not effect the number of shells available. A wide sheaf would not necessarily fire at a slower rate than a tight sheaf nor vice versa.

Have I missed something?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

I would imagine in real life the infantry would run into contact then call in a fire support mission.

Often that would be the case, especially among the more flexible Western systems.

But all sides would also use prep fires on preregistered targets both before and after the infantry, etc started moving out. Sometimes rolling or creeping barrages were dropped just in front of the advancing infantry. These were usually preplanned as well and careful timing and cöordination was essential.

Michael

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I couldn't make any sense of this at all. In fact it almost seems contrary to sense.

A battery or battalion would have so much ammo to shoot. Whether it would shoot it in a wide or tight sheaf would not effect the number of shells available. A wide sheaf would not necessarily fire at a slower rate than a tight sheaf nor vice versa.

Have I missed something?

I think you misunderstand me. The purpose of what I proposed is to help "influence" the player to use a wide sheaf, which was more often used, histroically speaking.

Let me repeat myself:

NOTE: the rate that the shells fall will remain constant, whether wide or tight sheaf. Only the abstract artillery points will decrease slower for a wide sheaf.

For example - a U.S. 105mm FO constantly using a tight sheaf would use all of his ammo with 3 turns totaling 100 rounds fired. If the same FO were to constantly use a wide sheaf, then he would expend 200 rounds over 6 turns.

To sum up: The rate of fire is exactly the same wheather you choose tight or wide sheaf.

Also, my proposal has nothing to do with how much ammo is available. An Artillery Battalion's ammo availibility is beyond CM's scope, unless the scenario designer decides to simulate a low ammo situation by giving his FOs only a few shells.

The best rational example I can give is that a battalion Artillery commander is more willing to expend a lot of shells on a larger area than a smaller area. Why should he waste a lot of shells on one small target? The FO had better have a good reason for requesting a larger number of shells in a concentrated spot. Is this making any sense to you now?

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

Basically running the arty in front of their forces so when contact is made arty falls on that target within 1 minute.

I have seen such a tactic in several war movies (Dien Bien Phu -assault of Huguette 7 by the Vietminh- , Thin Red Line -assault of the japanese MG bunker) i really don't know if it is realistic ; but if the infantry is in permanent radio contact with gunmen and keeps adjusting coordinates it is conceivable.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pak40:

I think you misunderstand me.

You're right, I did. Thanks for clarifying.

I still have to say that it looks like a funny way of going about it. I like Jason's approach better as it gives more of a feel for what the true situation (at least as I understand it) was.

Thanks anyway.

Michael

[Monty]

I would like to have an option for a Creeping Barrage !

I read also about arty barrages in which there was a narrow "tunnel" free of arty .

In that narrow space, the infantery advanced at full speed.

The russians used this, not shure about other countries.

Monty aka Moose

[The_Capt]

My biggest complaint about arty is it's lethality or lack thereof.

CM models blast but not frag. I have seen casualties taken at 200m from point of det on a 155mm. If you set up a CM run with troops running across pavement and drop 155mm 200m from them they won't even blink. In reality, shrapnel will be whipping past them and they are going to duck.

Neutered Arty is a big problem IMHO because it takes away the punch required to take on infantry and hence the game becomes very infantry orientated. I think the shortened response time (although I have read accounts where these times are accurate) was done so to balance the game out.

In reality the game may not be much fun if it simply becomes an arty slugfest. I for one would live with less high calibre arty (155mm and up) and live with smaller calibre (105s and mortars) if it could be modeled accuratly.

That and a quarter will get me a cup of coffee I know.

[Keke]

And how about national characterics of the arty? Fast response arty was used only by Amis and Finns (separately developed TOT-systems).

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

My biggest complaint about arty is it's lethality or lack thereof.

CM models blast but not frag. I have seen casualties taken at 200m from point of det on a 155mm. If you set up a CM run with troops running across pavement and drop 155mm 200m from them they won't even blink. In reality, shrapnel will be whipping past them and they are going to duck.

I think that is related to csomething I think would be important to have for MGs as well: both should cause an area (or lane in case of MGs) where morale is affected badly.

Neutered Arty is a big problem IMHO because it takes away the punch required to take on infantry and hence the game becomes very infantry orientated. I think the shortened response time (although I have read accounts where these times are accurate) was done so to balance the game out.

I agree that infantry is very robust in CMBO, but I never heard and don't assume myself that the fast artillery was done to counter that.

In reality the game may not be much fun if it simply becomes an arty slugfest. I for one would live with less high calibre arty (155mm and up) and live with smaller calibre (105s and mortars) if it could be modeled accuratly.

That and a quarter will get me a cup of coffee I know.

TacOps has much more lethal artillery and it doesn't take the fun out of the game. In TacOps, maneouvering with unmotorized infantry in sight of the enemy is a strict no-no. But that doesn't mean infantry is useless. Speed and surprise become more important.

For me, CMBO would be more fun with slower, much more random, but tighter to control and more lethal artillery.

As a datapoint, in wars before WW2, people were shooting up large numbers of infantrymen with calibers around 75mm.

[The_Capt]

Hey redwolf,

Keep in mind that "the box" in Tac Ops is much bigger than that of CM so you can disperse your troops much better.

I think "the arty" may be something to look at to bring the game more in line with reality. If they haven't already for CMBB (backward R's infered of course)

[Scipio]

I wonder how Arty mission wthout LOS will work in CM:BB. It is totally unrealistic that they come down just more dispersed, cause the FO is out of LOS. They will come down with the same disperse, but at the wrong location.

Indeed I even don't know if it is possible to order fire with more or less disperse - I served in a 120mm mortar section during my military service, and I have really no idea how this should work.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I wonder how Arty mission wthout LOS will work in CM:BB. It is totally unrealistic that they come down just more dispersed, cause the FO is out of LOS. They will come down with the same disperse, but at the wrong location.

In reality it would hit the wrong place as tight volley (possibly single guns off), and it would hit the same wrong place with each subsequent volley.

You cannot do that in a wargame like CMBO since the player may find the wrong place useful nontheless and keep ouring on, thereby gaining fully effective artillery strikes without having to observe them. So wargames have to find some way to make it not only inprecise but also less useful to the player.

TacOps does not do a CMBO-style wide pattern when unobserved, but instead it still drops tight volleys, but each volley at a different place. This still isn't realistic, but I find it a better compromise. Each volley will do serious damage whereever it falls (and that may include friendly troops in you aren't careful), and not predictable supressive fire over the whole area.

[dalem]

Also, keep in mind that this was 60 years ago. Artillery with 'quick response time' was limited to static positions with wire laid and grids marked. The Americans, and Brits to some extent, had the best systems in place, and those also depended on good communications, no shortages, etc. For East Front, I can't picture 'quick draw' fires being available all that often, except maybe for battalion mortars, but again, that needs commo, etc. Fire plans, on the other hand, I think will be more appropriate, and hopefully possible.

And it's my understanding that Sovs in a 'quiet' sector couldn't expect much of anything at all for the first parts of the war in terms of what CM would have as offmap artillery.

-dale

[Moon]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I wonder how Arty mission wthout LOS will work in CM:BB. It is totally unrealistic that they come down just more dispersed, cause the FO is out of LOS. They will come down with the same disperse, but at the wrong location.

That's what happens in CMBB. They "might" come down in the wrong locations...