Artillery/Airstrikes by grid reference

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi,

Why is it that in CMx1 we could call in artillery on a grid reference out of LOS of any forward observer but in CM:SF this is not allowed? If anything, it should be easier these days than in WWII because of GPS.

I remember reading in "Ambush Alley" that A-10 ground-attack runs were called in by a FO who could not see either the target or the A-10s. I think they call this CAS Type 3. The FO basically just told the A-10s that anything on a given side of the river at grid reference such-and-such was a valid target. Unfortunately the A-10 pilots were confused about which river he was talking about and strafed US troops by mistake.

Obviously then, calling in strikes by grid reference is more likely to lead to mistakes but it should definitely still be an option in CM:SF.

[M1A1TC]

To fire on a grid reference point you need a grid system. There in none in the CMSF

[YankeeDog]

I think he's talking about allowing artillery/CAS strikes on points out of LOS, which IRL would be done via Grid Reference, but in CMx1 was done simply by clicking on a point on the map (albiet with no guarantee at all of the shells actually falling anywhere near your click point).

IOW, the in-game interface needen't necessarily be an actual grid reference, to simulate such fires.

Cheers,

YD

[M1A1TC]

I understand what he is talking about, I have called in arty on grid reference points before in RL and in CM.

If this is implemented in a game, that would mean that arty can be dropped anywhere on the map. This would change the whole game/scenario design, not sure BFC wants to do that

I think they changed this deliberatly from CM for some reason

[SgtMuhammed]

Are there TRPs in the game, or some version of them? I haven't seen any and haven't played with the editor that much yet. You should definitely be able to set up preplanned targets, especially if you are making a deliberate attack.

[C'Rogers]

I think they changed this deliberatly from CM for some reason

I do think Steve brought this up a little bit long ago. I think the reason is that if the US could call in artillery without spotting what they are targeting, any type of balance between sides would be thrown out the window. Maps would need either much less artillery or much harsher penalties for destruction.

[thewood]

I thought the game was about trying to be somewhat realistic, not about balance. Thats why we have different types of objectives, like do not destroy.

['Card]

Geez... what you guys are asking for is incredibly unrealistic. Why, for that to happen, the troops would have to have something like a two-dimensional image of the terrain on a sheet of paper or something. Then they'd have to figure out how things on that sheet of paper correlated to the real-world terrain in front of them, and use that information to EXTRAPOLATE the parts they couldn't see. Then they'd have to read some numbers off of the sheet of paper, and do some really hard math and stuff. Or maybe you guys think they could just use computers and satellite images to do all of that?

I don't know where you people come up with this stuff. Landing artillery shells on parts of the field you can't actually SEE? That's just crazy talk.

[Omenowl]

Geez... what you guys are asking for is incredibly unrealistic. Why, for that to happen, the troops would have to have something like a two-dimensional image of the terrain on a sheet of paper or something. Then they'd have to figure out how things on that sheet of paper correlated to the real-world terrain in front of them, and use that information to EXTRAPOLATE the parts they couldn't see. Then they'd have to read some numbers off of the sheet of paper, and do some really hard math and stuff. Or maybe you guys think they could just use computers and satellite images to do all of that?

Yes, god forbid they use their PDAs with GIS maps uploaded to the PDA and then specify GPS coordinates from that.

[C'Rogers]

I thought the game was about trying to be somewhat realistic, not about balance.

It is, but is suppose to be realistic under a very, very narrow set of circumstances. And I think what they are going for involves actual engagement of a relatively small number of troops with artillery in a supporting role.

I don't know if the current objectives, as much an improvement as they are, and map sizes is enough to make that work out.

[Cpl Steiner]

IMHO a simulation should be all about realism and if that unbalances the game then tough. Artificially reducing US combat capabilities to give the other side a chance is not simulation. However, it is perfectly acceptable to deny the US some combat capabilities based on standing orders, such as the need to avoid friendly or civilian casualties. I mean, we don't have the option to call in tactical nukes do we! For fire missions and airstrikes on targets out of LOS, this could be done using a Mission Data parameter (one for each side).

Some suggestions for future patches/modules:

1. Allow timed preplanned barrages and airstrikes on targets not in LOS to any on-map unit, like in CMx1. At the moment you have to have LOS to the target from the setup zone and the maximum delay you are allowed is 15 minutes.

2. During game, allow barrages and airstrikes to be called in on targets not in LOS at the discretion of the scenario designer. This would require a Mission Data setting for each side, called something like "Air/Artillery Support requires LOS to target?" with selectable values of "Yes" or "No" (Default "Yes").

[wunwinglow]

If Granpappy could do it....

Tim

[DAGAMEDONTWORK]

Originally posted by Omenowl:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Geez... what you guys are asking for is incredibly unrealistic. Why, for that to happen, the troops would have to have something like a two-dimensional image of the terrain on a sheet of paper or something. Then they'd have to figure out how things on that sheet of paper correlated to the real-world terrain in front of them, and use that information to EXTRAPOLATE the parts they couldn't see. Then they'd have to read some numbers off of the sheet of paper, and do some really hard math and stuff. Or maybe you guys think they could just use computers and satellite images to do all of that?

Yes, god forbid they use their PDAs with GIS maps uploaded to the PDA and then specify GPS coordinates from that. </font>

[M1A1TC]

both of the people you quoted were being sarcastic

[SgtMuhammed]

Maybe they are simulating that the batteries on everyone's GPS went dead and they have forgotten how to read a map.

[Peter Cairns]

There is of course ROE to consider....

As I recall even though the US and others have long had BVR radar guided AAM's it's often been the case that the rules of engagement were,

"Don't fire unless you have visual identification of the target".

If the decision was that the enemy is not Syria or it's people but elements within it, who may be difficult to distinguish from each other or civilians, then the RoE might well be,

"No fire without a visual ".

Sure, you know there are bad guys in a convoy on the road over that hill, but is there also a line of ambulances or a couple of school buses full of kids.

Frustraiting as it may be for players and indeed people in real life not to be able to bring to bare the firepower available, it's increasingly a feature that plays a part in real life scenarios.

So maybe what they are simulating is the fact that indirect fire is deniged unless you can visually confirm the target and avoid civilian or friendly fire.

Peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

I guess that is nicer than saying that they screwed up.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

There is of course ROE to consider....

I would welcome idea of Syria wiping it's arse with this kind ROE and hammer capitalstic pigs as hard and long (not that long afterall)as they can.