Suppressive Fire / Area Fire

[Cpl Steiner]

Sorry to bore you all with another thread (this is becoming almost compulsive behaviour for me due to the long wait for the game) but I think this might actually be of interest to some of you.

In CMx1 direct fire from a squad had to be directed at a specific point but was considered to be spread over an area around that point (probably about 20m or so but I'm not sure).

Sometimes, when I wanted to suppress the widest area possible, I'd split all the squads in a platoon and have all the half-squads fire on different points. As long as none of the half-squads were moved after being split they would all automatically merge back into whole squads again at the end of the turn, which was an added bonus. The only disadvantage was that if you did it with squads in a building, some half-squads ended up being kicked out of the building due to lack of room (slightly nonsensical but an understandable and easily avoidable "feature" of the game system).

As we have seen from some of the CM:SF GUI screenshots, squads in CM:SF also have an internal sub-unit structure. I think this means they can also be split down in the way described above, so presumably the above tactic for suppressing large areas will still be valid in CM:SF.

However, having thought about this, why should we have to make use of rather "gamey" tactics such as these? In real life, the leader of the squad would just give orders to each sub-unit to direct fire on a given location. In theory, at the extreme end of the spectrum, each individual member of the squad could be ordered to target a different point.

In light of the above, it would be nice if in CM:SF a squad was allowed to target more than one point at once without having to break down into sub-units. The game system would then split the squad's fire equally between all the designated target points. I would suggest one target point should be allowed per 2 or 3 men at the very least.

[dalem]

I think Area Fire needs to be able to be designated by an area (maybe with a click-pull like a circle in a graphics program), not a point as is currently done in CMx1. The BFC guys have heard suggestions for this from me and others for years now, so I doubt it's anything new under the sun for them.

If and how they can or will implement it is another story of course.

It would be nice to be able to "light up a treeline" for suppression - my mg platoons might actually be able to really support an attack that way.

-dale

[aka_tom_w]

"It would be nice to be able to "light up a treeline" for suppression - my mg platoons might actually be able to really support an attack that way.

-dale"

I agree

I expect to see more in the way of MG and HMG supression in CM:SF

(maybe)

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

dalem, aka_tom_w,

Thanks for your replies. I used to split all my squads to "light up a treeline" as you describe but as you say even a single infantry weapon has the capability to suppress a wide area because it can be rapidly swung back and forth over a wide arc and even swung up and down to cover higher and lower elevation areas. I can imagine what a nightmare that would be to simulate in a game! If in CM:SF bullets are dangerous along their entire flight-path (this would be another great enhancement over CMx1 if it could be done) then it is even more interesting because a single infantry weapon could then suppress everything in a massive fire "cone".

I tend to agree with you that perhaps multiple target points is insufficient for this. A better simulation would be to give the squad a firing arc and have the game pick targets in real-time for each member of the squad, with each member given a designated segment of the arc to cover. Elevation would be considered implicit in the arc, i.e. if a squad member's segment included a three-story building, he would suppress every floor.

Can you imagine how cool this would look with 1:1 representation if implemented!

[Other Means]

I'm wondering how you will be able to order area fire at all, given relative spotting.

IOW, as the player you're in command of the entire battle, so know what everyone sees and therefore where to aim area fire. Is this realistic? As implemented in CMx1, obviously not. So will there be chain of command delays for area fire, similar to that for arty described in the arty thread?

Steve?

[MikeyD]

I remember in CMx1 I'd often complain that I wasn't permitted to order my hvy mg to fire beyond his LOS down some dark or foggy road, just to deny the enemy access to it. I suspect I'm not going to be permitted to fire off my ammo into the night in this game either.

Your mention of area fire got me thinking. Will artillery fire outside of LOS be any more accurate in this 'modern' war game? You know, plotting your firing orders by map coordinates to hit some out-of-sight road junction? Well... now that I think of it, in CMx1 we already can purchase aim point bulleyes for selected accurately plotted fire outside of LOS. But that's only for pre-selected area fire at setup, you can't do it on-the-fly.

[Londoner]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I suspect I'm not going to be permitted to fire off my ammo into the night in this game either.

Nooooo! Really hoped this would be sorted, firing on fixed lines is such an integral part of the HMGs role, that is a shame!

[MikeyD]

Don't say "is" a shame.

Say "might be" or "perhaps" or "probably" or "could be" or... "that MikeyD doesn't really know zip about this game is..."

...a shame.

[rudel.dietrich]

I wonder if the targeting system is based on firing at individual units or setting up units to fire based on frontage.

I would much prefer the later along with what special weapons to add in as well as ROF and how much time is given to aiming versus putting as much metal on the target as possible.

[tar]

Will artillery fire outside of LOS be any more accurate in this 'modern' war game? You know, plotting your firing orders by map coordinates to hit some out-of-sight road junction? Well... now that I think of it, in CMx1 we already can purchase aim point bulleyes for selected accurately plotted fire outside of LOS. But that's only for pre-selected area fire at setup, you can't do it on-the-fly.

I fear that having this available, particularly on the fly will just open the door to abuses. It has the potential to circumvent the entire relative spotting system. If you, as the player, can use one unit to see this road junction (and thus also see what is on it), and then switch to a forward observer who "magically" knows that this is the right time to shoot at this part of the map he can't see, you will have defeated the relative spotting system.

In order to counteract such gamey moves, I would expect that the accuracy of unspotted artillery fire will have to be downgraded by more than in real life, since one will have a lot more information and especially information integration capability as a player than a real commander would have.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Londoner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

I suspect I'm not going to be permitted to fire off my ammo into the night in this game either.

Nooooo! Really hoped this would be sorted, firing on fixed lines is such an integral part of the HMGs role, that is a shame! </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by WineCape:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Londoner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

I suspect I'm not going to be permitted to fire off my ammo into the night in this game either.

Nooooo! Really hoped this would be sorted, firing on fixed lines is such an integral part of the HMGs role, that is a shame! </font>

[Thermopylae]

Tar that wouldn't be gamey at all. Target hand-off for observation is a definite cornerstone of using artillery.

It might go like this:

"6, Red 1, got a couple guys in a truck offloading RPGs at 123 456, I'd be firing across a town, but you could try indirect."

"Red 1, 6, roger."

<6 calls for fire..wait a bit...>

"Red 1, 6, you see those rounds go in?"

"Can't correct them 6, a mac truck just stopped in front of me."

"6, White 1, saw the impact..direction....135 degrees....left 200...drop 50, fire for effect"

ON PLT NET

"4, 1. Thanks for the heads up, didn't even know that was happening. Now where are we?"

[Cameroon]

Thermopylae, I don't think that's at issue but the issue that could be exploited is more like this:

6 - to himself - God I wish I could contact someone to let them know that I need fire at 123 456.

... some time passes ... Rounds come in!

6 - to himself - Damn, someone read my mind!

Because you as the player would know that there is a target for Red 1 to fire at, Red 1 could fire without anyone lower on the chain calling for that fire.

Hope I didn't butcher the example too badly, but that's how I see the gamey-ness working Granted, that's no different than in CMx1, but the question remains will that still be there in CMx2. I don't really see how it couldn't be, but maybe they got sneaky

[Thermopylae]

Red 1 is pretty low on the chain of command. Thats the first platoon leader in a mech company team. (4 is his PSG by the way).

As long as someone in his platoon spots the target, he knows about it. Indeed it could be red three adjusting the fire when it comes down. Red 1 may just be going off 3's word that there are guys at 123 456, without eyes on himself if the situation were dire.

3 calls 1, Red 1 calls 6, Black 6 calls the FDC in proper artilleryese, FDC pushes buttons on a computer and break out their rulers, FDC calls the battery with fire info, battery sets and fires. FDC calls 6 to let him know rounds are coming, 6 puts it out on company net. Correction flows back up the chain.

Or: FDC denies Black 6 because Saber 6 is: using his stuff elsewhere/saving his stuff/worried about collateral/thinks a different company is going to need it more pretty soon...etc.

[Cameroon]

That's why I said I hope I didn't butcher it too badly I should have gone more abstract - basically the player can direct units that have no way to share knowledge to cooperate as if they did have shared knowledge. That is, the God's Eye View.

I think the question was more along the lines of "...will limiting the accuracy of out-of-LOS arty continue to be the method to limit the impact of the God's Eye View." 'Course I could be wrong

[Thermopylae]

Well, a well trained company team (CM:SF standard unit) will all be sharing information. Vast amounts of it. At least the US side. I'd imagine the better syrian units would work that way too.

As for no LOS arty: you could just model it after real life. No US commander is going to release fires on an unobserved company level fire mission unless its a known pre-plot to cover a displacement or a planned interdiction mission. So, no firing unobserved except preplanned targets. Even then, with no one to observe the rounds, it'd make sense that the rounds just kept falling in the first sheath.

A really cool questiona bout suppression is how it affects wire guided missiles. If a Tow takes, say, 10 seconds to fly 2km, if the Syrian player suppresses the launcher while the missile is enroute, will accuracy be degraded?

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

Well, a well trained company team (CM:SF standard unit) will all be sharing information. Vast amounts of it. At least the US side. I'd imagine the better syrian units would work that way too.

As for no LOS arty: you could just model it after real life. No US commander is going to release fires on an unobserved company level fire mission unless its a known pre-plot to cover a displacement or a planned interdiction mission. So, no firing unobserved except preplanned targets. Even then, with no one to observe the rounds, it'd make sense that the rounds just kept falling in the first sheath.

A really cool questiona bout suppression is how it affects wire guided missiles. If a Tow takes, say, 10 seconds to fly 2km, if the Syrian player suppresses the launcher while the missile is enroute, will accuracy be degraded?

I believe this was the major tactic used by the Israelis against man launched ATGM's, so I think it will be simulated.

[tar]

Cameroon read my mind perfectly!

Where it really gets to be an issue is when you have different priorities for fire support amongst different units. So, even though Red 1 could see the target and may even have a radio to call for fire support, the devious player would arrange for an FO without LOS, but with much higher priority, to call for map fire. The fire mission will be much more likely to be accepted, and probably more quickly. But this would be highly gamey, exploiting the multiple viewpoints available to a single player.

[Thermopylae]

We would really have to know more about how FISTs/FOs work before getting further into the topic. But mainly, a CO can use his FIST (and will) to process a platoon fire request because it is so much faster/better/more likely to get someone's attention than his own.

Of course then there becomes the issue of priorities of fire and that tar baby.