An example of Artillery in Action

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the comments!

Jeffsmith,

These icons should only show up if there is detection by the in game units in high levels of FOW and does that change with lower FOW settings

Yup and yup. I was playing in the easiest mode which sets the lowest threshold for spotting. Also, those little buggers were shooting at me quite a bit before I dropped the artillery on them. They are nicely suppressed in the screenshot because Mr. Onefivefive specializes in that

Dumrox,

You say delay is the final parameter but it looks like delivery is the final parameter. Also, you indicate a 2 minute delay (although you call it delivery) but the parameter value and the game clock seem to indicate that the actual delay was 5 minutes or so.

Delay is the last one I set, Delivery is simply determined by all the factors. Yes, 2 minutes was the initial delay, the minimum to simply get the call placed up the chain of command. By the time I had finished it came to 5 minutes.

Moronic Max,

Steve, will you marry me?

Sorry, I'm taken. But thanks for the offer

Hi John,

Looks great and fire support request interface seems fairly straightforward. Artillery fire mission size in the example given seems to be more reflective of counterinsurgency type combat rather than general warfare, but it may very well reflect real world constraints on use of heavy firepower in MOUT.

Two differences between CM:SF and CMx1 games. The first is that you can do a LOT more with a lot less tubes firing. In WWII if you wanted to suppress a trenchline or take out a couple of houses you'd have to probably fire a couple batteries for a 10 minutes to assure success. Second, the scale is slightly lower than in CMx1 so huge barrages unbalance the game. That being said, if you wanted to make a scenario with 8 batteries (16 guns) firing at various targets, go right ahead. You would simply repeat the process I did 8 times. Except for large scale area fire this is probably how it would be done in real life anyway since more than a gun or two trained on any one spot is a waste of effort.

The overheads of the target building look like they might be from a UAV. Are they? Definitely wouldn't want to be in that trench! The mounted assault looks pretty cool, and I believe this is our first look at the new pattern armor mod. Love the telephone poles! Will we have wires on them in the finished game? Shadowing looks very good, too. Icons strongly remind me of ToW. Can they be switched off if desired, if nothing else for screenshots and possible movies? Otherwise, no realistic looking "war film."

The view was just the chosen camera position (I wasn't playing in Iron Man Mode, which isn't coded now anyway). No wires for telephone poles... too many polies to be worth the effort. We will have the option to switch off the icons, but functionally that's probably not the way many people will play. BTW, the HUD at the top also gives information about where enemy units are and you can click on it to select.

Back in the 1980s, ISTR the categories were H&I, Suppression, Neutralization and Destruction.

Yes, but we don't use those terms. The original design called for them but we found it to be confusing and somewhat redundant the way we did things. We have all sorts of fuzes and the system is smart enough to know to use delay settings for structures.

Imperial Grunt,

Here is a grog critique for you though. A US Army rifle platoon HQ section does not have an XO. XO's appear at company level and higher. The XO should read platoon sergeant.

Tell that to Charles He didn't want to get into terminology exceptions all over the place, so all assistant commanders are called XO regardless of level of command or side. For example, the Syrian second in command soldiers are called XOs even though in Soviet terminology they are called "Deputy Commanders". Lord only knows what they are in Arabic The ranks, however, do corrispond to the actual rank of that assistant leader. If you clicked on the Platoon "XO" you would see a SFC.

Romulus,

Guess the abstraction level of the artillery model in CMx1 will look pretty obsolete once we get used to the detail level of CMx2.

Good guess!

Yankee Dog,

like the fact that the game engine tracks what individual members of a team are doing (spotting, driving, etc.) -- I assume this affect situational awareness, etc.

Yes. Each individual spots, aims, and shoots on his own. Special tasks are also done individually, like reloading a Javelin.

1) How easy is it to coordinate different support assets?

Very easy. As I said, it takes about 8 seconds of leisurely clicking to get a complex support call firmed up. I could probably do a Point Target call in about 3-4 seconds. The first step, the target area, is the one that takes the most time from a physical standpoint.

You can specify how long to wait before the Asset starts its attack as well as how long it should last. This allows you to do something like you suggest, which is to have the 155s do something and then 81 mortars do something else. So you can quickly set up complex, coordinated calls in one go. You could also start up the harassing fire manually after the 155s have settled down. Since it is a Company level asset most of the time, it will be quite responsive from a time perspective.

(2) AIUI, many of the longer-range gun artillery assets (like the Paladin) can do Simultaneous Time-On-Target strikes, where one tube can put as many as 6 rounds on the same target, all impacting at roughly the same time, by using different charge & elevation settings. Any plans to include this kind of capability in the game?

Not as such. However, you can control the rate of fire using the Mission Parameter. When we get into testing we'll see if Heavy does the trick, if not we can tweak this pretty easily.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Very cool. Thanks for the responses!

[J Ruddy]

Ya know, I just might have to buy this game.

[WineCape]

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[hellfish]

Do you know what kinds of rounds you're planning to have for the 155s? What about HIMARS/MLRS?

[Cpl Steiner]

Fantastic! Can't wait for the finished game.

I noticed the buildings in those screenshots had balconies. Are they just for show or can soldiers actually stand on them?

I would be interested to know also how the Syrian side will differ from the US side for artillery requests. Presumably a militia unit trying to call in mortar fire will get very few options other than, "they're over there".

Keep up the good work!

[Holman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You know, I expected the first post would be a grog complaining about something. Little did I know it would be a LANGUAGE grog. They're the worst

Steve

It's true!

In my defense, I was drunk at the time. Can't wait for the game!

[Salkin]

Now we're getting somewhere !

Huge explosions and Strykers.....Christmas is early this year .

//Salkin

[Elmar Bijlsma]

OMGWTF, where are the blastwaves!?

Looks really great, thanks for sharing. I'm particularly pleased that getting artillery on a target seems well simulated without being unwieldy and a chore.

[Battlefront.com]

No MLRS, unless someone can show me a regular use of it for a tactical engagement

Balconies are "playble", meaning you can put guys out there on them.

Ah yes, artillery from the other side. Well, let's just say it isn't as good Not only is everything slower and less effective, but few units can call in artillery, unlike on the US side where everybody can (but not equally). It is probable that Syrian doctrine is the same as Soviet doctrine, which means the big stuff is all controlled by dedicated FOs while smaller stuff is controlled by the Company HQ (not sure about Platoon HQ). Intel reports on Syrian artillery capabilities agree that they have a lot of potential that is greatly hindered by their ridged control system. Sounds like Soviet doctrine to me

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

What about the Syrian player's ability to use artillery tubes in a direct fire rather than indirect fire mode? Any chance of that?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Buildings are looking very very nice.

I can see myself spending hours working on a single building when making maps.

Aren't they hardcoded?

[Imperial Grunt]

Two more very minor questions..

1) The observer was 274 meters away from the target, which is "danger close" for artillery. Will "danger close" requests be delayed due to the fact that the FDC is going to double check everything before firing the rounds? And I have to assume that short rounds are going to be simulated as well.

2) In the last picture showing the valiant mounted charge of the Stryker platoon, the unit nomenclature states "4th Infantry Combat Vehicle". Is that the 4th vehicle in the platoon, or is there a 4th Infantry Regiment/Brigade that the Strykers belong to? An "ICV 4, 1st Plt" may be more clear.

Keep up the great progress!

[Battlefront.com]

Imperial Grunt,

No direct fire artillery in CM:SF's initial release. Crew served weapons are a huge headache for us to do, so we're being purposefully careful about what we put in. Since we don't see this being a common thing we're leaving it out. At least for now.

Danger close... good point. We'll have to do something about this. Organic assets should be penalized less since they are more in the loop and "trusted". I hadn't thought about the latter, but I found this quote from Fallujah that put me onto it:

d. Massing Fires. The only drawback was our inability to mass fires on targets due to having only two guns. While we did have general support reinforcing (GSR) assets, they were slow, cumbersome and more difficult to coordinate with than our organic systems. Trust was also an issue as the vast majority of our fires were danger-close, and we did not know the proficiency level of the supporting guns.

So they took extra time for the GSR stuff because there wasn't an established level of trust between them, so quite rightly the Marines on the ground wanted to make sure all Ts were crossed and Is dotted before stuff came down. Here is the full AAR:

http://www.ringnebula.com/FieldArtillery_MarApr2005.htm

BTW, there is a great video up on YouTube that shows some type of aircraft bomb hitting a building that couldn't be more than a 100m or so from the cameraman's position (they were the grunts calling in the strike). The hit was dead on and they were thrilled. Couldn't tell if it was because the enemy got killed or because the bomb didn't hit them instead

The unit labels are still works in progress, but yes... that is the 4ht Vehcile in that particular Platoon. The labels at the top of the unit specify the unit's own ID only. For other chain of command info you need to look down below. Personally, I would like to see 3 levels of command displayed at the top (eg. ICV 4, 1st Plt, C Co), but we'll just have to see about that.

Mike,

All buildings are customizable. The basic size, shape (to some extent), number of stories, which floors have balconies, which floors have windows and/or doors (or blank or damaged), how many windows, the style of roof, and the texture set to use. Buildings can be placed together and made into larger structures simply by eliminating interior walls, having doors of one floor open up onto a roof of another, etc. Lots and lots of possibilities!

Steve

[Severin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BTW, there is a great video up on YouTube that shows some type of aircraft bomb hitting a building that couldn't be more than a 100m or so from the cameraman's position (they were the grunts calling in the strike). The hit was dead on and they were thrilled. Couldn't tell if it was because the enemy got killed or because the bomb didn't hit them instead

You got a link for that?

[erics]

Originally posted by Severin:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BTW, there is a great video up on YouTube that shows some type of aircraft bomb hitting a building that couldn't be more than a 100m or so from the cameraman's position (they were the grunts calling in the strike). The hit was dead on and they were thrilled. Couldn't tell if it was because the enemy got killed or because the bomb didn't hit them instead

You got a link for that? </font>

[John Kettler]

Can someone tell me when the U.S. shifted to two-gun battery composition? ISTR that late in the Cold War we had M109A2 batteries in Europe with eight guns each, up from the previous six. Is the M109A6 so incredibly nasty we've taken a huge swing toward smaller battery size?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Imperial Grunt]

John, its not that the US has lowered the number of tubes in its artillery batteries, it is the number of artillery gun sections and batteries that are doing other missions than their primary mission.

When 1st Mar Div re-deployed back to Iraq in March of 04, they originally returned with very few artillery tubes, with the intent of minimizing collateral damage. The 82nd had been using artillery in a counter mortar role extensively, which caused alot of resentment and the Marines hoped to reverse this. Unfortunatly, it did not work out as hoped.

But for Fallujah 1 and 2, very little artillery was on hand as compared to OIF. Then 1st Mar Div had a reinforced artillery regiment (11th Marines). I am sure that 3rd ID and the various Army brigades were full up as well on artillery.

For an invasion of Syria, there would be lots of artillery.

[Severin]

Off topic: this one is called

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No MLRS, unless someone can show me a regular use of it for a tactical engagement

GMLRS?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bDRsafyvyQ

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7963

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mike,

All buildings are customizable. The basic size, shape (to some extent), number of stories, which floors have balconies, which floors have windows and/or doors (or blank or damaged), how many windows, the style of roof, and the texture set to use. Buildings can be placed together and made into larger structures simply by eliminating interior walls, having doors of one floor open up onto a roof of another, etc. Lots and lots of possibilities!

Steve

Steve: I'm starting to think J. Ruddy is right...

[dan/california]

Give me a pre_order link. I want to be able to gripe about it not being finished with legal standing.

[ParaBellum]

Great news!

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/5517/newspaperaa9.jpg

[John Kettler]

Imperial Grunt,

I appreciate the clarification on arty battery composition. Was wondering otherwise how I 'd managed to miss such a significant development.

ParaBellum,

Tres droll!

Regards,

John Kettler

[dan/california]

That fake is disturbingly good Para..