anti sniping & artillery detection

[lucero1148]

Will this be simulated? Artillery radar would certainly be available for the brigade but down to what level? Anti -sniping both acoustic and thermal are in use in Iraq and from what little I've read about it both are accurate and have enhanced counter-fire back to the sniper position with high accuracy. Certainly for defense at the base and from what I understand portable thermal devices are taken on mobile patrols and convoys. Or will this be insignificant as far as CMSF gameplay is concerned?

All best

Patrick

[Dillweed]

I think these would fall under the "neat, but not worth 3 weeks of coding" catagory. And considering some of the scenarios in the campaign will only contain 1 enamy sniper team, being able to instantly find and waste them on turn would be pretty lame.

[Wicky]

Steve said this a while back that possibly has relevence to your question...

Yes to things that are relevant to attacking a mobile attacking force, no to things that are only relevant to static stability and counter insurgency settings ...

[YankeeDog]

Actually, I think some of this stuff gets far above just "neat, but not worth 3 weeks of coding"

I don't expect CMX2 really model the kind of protracted hunt for 1 or 2 snipers in an urban setting you see in counterinsurgency stuff like Iraq. At least, I don't want it to -- a 3 hour long scenario of creeping around an urban map with a platoon or two, looking for a sniper, and a mission goal of taking out the sniper with no more than 1 casualty is an entirely different game from what CM has always been. Properly done, such a game might be interesting, but I don't think it's what BFC is trying to create.

However, the tremendous advantage US military has in stuff like thermal imaging, light enhancement, etc. is equally applicable to a "hot" military campaign. There's a *reason* why the US military likes to make its attacks into urban and other dense terrain at night. For any realistic depection of modern MOUT, there's going to need to be some kind of modeling of this stuff, however abstract.

Same goes for anti-artillery radar, and especially anti-mortar systems. This technology dates back to WWII, and the US military has gotten a lot of practice using and perfecting such systems through the decades. I'm no expert but AIUI, some of the systems are good enough to resolve a counter-mortar firing solution before the first incoming round even lands. And I would be very surprised if the Stryker Brigades did not have access to this technology in some form, if not organic, then certainly as an attached unit.

Bascially, if a Syrian sniper or MG can sit in a building window at night and fire off rounds impunity, that's unrealistic -- IRL, he'd get spotted pretty quickly by US forces with light-enhancement and thermal imaging capability once he showed himself in the window and began firing.

Same goes for on-map mortars. Realistically, the US commander with access to counter-mortar radar should get an appoximate position fix to Syrian mortar within a few rounds of the mortar opening fire, and be able to engage with counter-mortar fire.

It's just one of the realities of modern combat that snipers and mortars need to take a shot or two and then reposition, or they get pasted. In some way, CMX2 is going to need to model that if they want a realistic simulation. I suspect Charles & Co. are light years ahead of the rest of us in thinking this out, though.

Cheers,

YD

[Dillweed]

Don't get me wrong, NVGs a very important, I expect them to be included (apperently the syrian SF guys have them as well.) I'm not too sure about the more exotic laser acustic based systems. Seems a little excessive. And yes, if anti-mortar radars are being commonly employed at the company level, I definetly expect them to be in. I am not aware that they are, only the bigger anti-artillery radar. I would expect that that would be abstracted.

But yes, I share your faith that if something is common for a Stryker company BFC will have it in.

[Peter Cairns]

The way to simulate it will be like anything else, how you organise your units and operate them.

If you don't have people in the right place doing overwatch, then the sniper can fire till his hearts content. thermal imaging can't see through hills, walls or round corners.

If he's straight ahead, or you have covering weapons, then how long he survives depends on what you hit him with, in which case, he's either, dead, paniced supppressed or moved.

basically it's the same as CM, the weapons don't work by magic or do it themselves, it's about the choices you make.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

There are a lot of very interesting, innovative pieces of equipment being fielded these days. Some are simply tests, others are larger issues based on previous tests. However, the majority of the neat stuff we're hearing about these days is for anti-insurgency ops and therefore not applicable to CM:SF. Also, the numbers of these things is sometimes measured in the dozens.

To simulate the average line unit having these things in any number requires first knowing if there is a need for it. Stuff that jams/detonates IEDs might very well become standard equipment very soon, at least for scout type units. Small UAVs, yup, Stryker units already have them. Urban Breach Kits, well I should hope so!! Anti-sniper stuff... probably not any time soon. In an active combat environment the probability of such equipment (which from what I can tell rely upon audio feedback) isn't likely to be all that useful.

Steve

[lucero1148]

Ok that's understandable. However it apears that the various types of anti-sniping devices being used is for more than just the lone sniper ambush. That units on the ground were actively looking for the devices to enhance their defense and response time to any attacks.

I lost the thread where I read about the latest device which relied not on acoustics but on lasers/thermals(?) to pinpoint with greater accuracy than those using acoustics.

Anyway suffice to say that the devices don't merit including into the game.

All best

Patrick

[JasonC]

Simulating counter-battery radar should be easy enough to code. Don't tell the Syrian player whether the US has the capability in a given scenario, do tell the US player. If he has it, then whenever mortars (and the like) fire on-map, give the US a "sound contact" to the firing unit. With a varying location error, but sometimes pretty good. (Narrower spread than the typical 200m of a CMx1 sound contact).

Another level of counterbattery might be, the US can have (or buy in QBs whatever) an abstract indirect fire suppression capability, like an artillery module or air support on the artillery screen. It doesn't do anything unless the Syrian player takes and uses an FO. Then any (Syrian) FO has its ammo go to zero, p percent of the time, 1-5 minutes after first firing. Subsequent shots, by the same FO or different, same p percent of suppression.

The effect would be to make artillery support less reliable for the Syrian side, if the US player "invests" his fire support in that end, instead of in on map support. You don't have to worry about simulating details of round detection, targeting, type of suppressing fire, etc. Syrian FO rounds just go away prematurely some of the time.

[lucero1148]

Now that's a good way to handle anti - artillery support.