How often do you use Area Fire!?

[Pandur]

currently i work on a scenario, it has "many" BMP1´s.

while playtesting i noticed that they utterly lack initiative to give infantry support.

they shoot on vehicles normaly, but if they ever see infantry you can say pretty sure that they pepper it with their coax, but never use their formidable gun, wich got 40 rounds all in all. 20 of them HE, wich is plenty. at least they regulary have 40 left when beeing knocked out.

this, combined with their "syrian" spotting capability sometimes pushes me that far, to use area fire on enemys this vehicle "could" see and hit but either does not see or its useing its coax again.

if it gets really hot i also let em do the area fire dance with 3 waypoints á 15 seconds pause with a area target tied to every one of them.

when i rarely play US side, its bit different. i do it less as the US vehicles dont lack the initiative to use their main weapons instead of their coax to support.

i dont talk about spotting there, they just dont sit and look but shoot, so area fire isnt needed mostly when i play blue.

now i ask myself did we needed "relative spotting" for that!? to area fire everything dead in 2 or 3 rounds flat, no matter if ouer "units" can see em.

area fire works like a charm, its deadly as aimed fire and the ultimate solution as it seems.

how often do you use area fire!? do you rubble the whole map or just now and than!?

[Paper Tiger]

I haven't played as the US side for MONTHS now but when I did, I often used it. But that's from way back in the 1.04 days. Playing as the Syrians, I usually only use it after I've spotted something and it becomes a ?. Since the Red resupply option was introduced, I started to use it quite often and when I'm playing my campaign missions, I use it a lot as the republican Guards, even without any ?s.

[Pandur]

thats interessting, when i talk about area fire i talk about "vehicles". i never ever used area fire for infantry so far, since the game came out.

thing is i never felt that this is needed in any way. infantry reacts good and at least US vehicles too.

mostly i aim for the moment where the enemy starts shooting, and i try to get him shooting as often as possible in order for my units to see the enemy, in order to engage it.

and naturaly when i area fire the building the enemy does not pop up and puts himself in the line of fire. so i figured its more "effective" to fire on spotted persons insted of slowly reducing the whole building to rubble.

BUT it seems its better and more effective to do that.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Area fire should be subject to significant order delay, or only allowed to target recent markers.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Originally posted by Pandur:

... i never ever used area fire for infantry so far, since the game came out.

Hmm, the ghost campaign for instance is impossible to play without area fire IMO. I played the first map whithout ever actually targeting a syrian. Most syrian units were killed by the area fire, the others were killed because they were thoroughlly pinned when my troops stormed the buildings.

[gibsonm]

I usually use Area fire from a vehicle whenever:

1. My infantry is taking fire from unidentified units in that building / location, or

2. I suspect that the position is occupied and has LOS to a route that will be used by one of my Squads in the next or current turn (can’t speak for RT as I’m a WEGO player).

So if one of my overwatch vehicles has LOS to a building that in turn might overlook or dominate say a road and I intend to have troops cross the road, I plot area fire onto the building to suppress any of its occupants.

If the ROE prevents use of main armament then I “Target Light”, if there are no restrictions I’m happy to “Target” and use the heavier weapons.

The only exception to this would be Bradleys as I don’t want them to waste TOW on a building (esp. if there is a possible armour threat). In this case I use “Target Light” as this generates 25mm and 7.62mm fire without triggering TOW launches.

[handihoc]

Originally posted by __Yossarian0815[jby]:

Hmm, the ghost campaign for instance is impossible to play without area fire IMO.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Martin Krejcirik:

Area fire should be subject to significant order delay, or only allowed to target recent markers.

Yep. I made a massive suggestion about this in skunkworks ages ago - I think it needs to be delayed via the CoC (including ad-hoc "within shouting range") or via the units own perception. IOW, if the unit giving fire has a question mark icon, the delay should be reduced etc.

I feel it would model the command net and actually find a use for it. Currently it means very little.

It's also predicated on command lines being re-introduced, as you need to see the command net in order to use it.

What I think it would bring to the game is that element of forward planning and tactical "within command" decisions you would have to make.

Fighting withdrawls would be possible, the sighting or support weapons and maintaining of communications would all become more important. Issues like going for a flanking manoeuvre would be more important, as the flanking units might then be out of comms and so isolated from support - real decision that need to be made in the real world, especially for WWII.

[Secondbrooks]

Area fire on buildings when squad starts it's assault. Can save the day for those guys.

But overall i'm quite lazy in using area fire, basically if it's more that platoon which needs to be babysit by me then i usually ignore issuing 'area fire'-targets and by that let them suffer more casulities.

[ April 25, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[YankeeDog]

In general, I agree that it would be an enhancement to realism to add at least some delay to the execution of Area fire orders. Even better if it can be related to C&C somehow.

But it's complicated, because there are alot of variables that would affect just how much of a delay would be realistic for Area Fire, and some of these variables are things I don't think the game currently models.

An example in a game I played last night: I had an MGS (among other assets) overwatching a couple of Squads in ICV Strkyers approaching a group of buildings. There wasn't a huge seperation between the overwatching MGS and the advancing units (maybe ~200m), and they had roughly the same bearing relative to the buildings. So they had a similar battlefield perspective; i.e., "Second buildling from the left" would mean the same thing to both the maneuver group and the overwatching MGS.

I strongly suspected there were enemy units in the buildings -- I had received scattered small arms fire from that general direction previously, but hadn't been able to establish a hard contact.

Anyway, enemy infantry popped up in one of the buildings and started firing on the advancing ICV Strkyers. The approaching Strkyers spot the enemy quickly, but the MGS overwatching does not -- the enemy infantry are firing out of the side of the building (relative to the MGS's perspective), so the MGS didn't quite have LOS to the enemy unit. But it has good LOS to the building and floor the enemy unit is occupying. I order Area Fire from the MGS onto the building, and pretty quickly the enemy fire ceases.

Now, the Strkyer infantry platoon and the MGS are from different Companies in the TOE structure, so the game models them as being fairly distant in terms of C&C -- info has a long way to go "around the horn" to get from one unit to another. Purely modeling an Area Fire delay on CMSF's C&C net would therefore presumably create a longer delay penalty. And since the MGS can only see the building, not the enemy unit itself, it will never gain LOS to the enemy unit on its own.

But IMHO, this is a "set play" situation where the Area Fire response would probably be pretty rapid. The MGS crew is specifically tasked with overwatching the advancing Strykers. The enemy shows up in an suspected area. The spotting unit and the overwatch unit are both on the same radio net. The spotting unit and the overwatch unit are not overly distant and have a similar perspective on the target area, making communication easier.

How much delay would be realistic in this situation? Certainly more than the nearly instantaneous response I got. But probably not a lot. And it's important to keep in mind that the requirement player input enforces a degree of delay to Area Fire, especially in WEGO where you have to wait until the end of the turn.

So, if Area Fire delay is added to the game (which I am generally in favor of), care does need to be taken that it does not unduly penalize where it shouldn't. If you haven't noticed, some units like MGSes can't spot on their own for crap. . . unduly nerfing Area Fire could destroy some legitimate tactics.

Cheers,

YD

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Area fire on buildings when squad starts it's assault. Can save the day for those guys.

That's the only way I use area fire!

-

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I use area fire with tanks or MGSs against infantry in order to suppress/kill enemies they can't see but can hurt with their shells. I also use area fire with infantry (and just about everything else with LOF) for suppressing fire on enemy positions that I'm storming with another team.

As to the command execution delay, it can make sense in some circumstances, but definitely not all. It would depend what you were using it for.

-FMB

[Pandur]

i am happy already that area fire snaps to the grid. however it was said that this might change

I think it needs to be delayed via the CoC (including ad-hoc "within shouting range") or via the units own perception.

measure 1 would be drastic, when i think of RED again, as i mostly do as on BLUE side everything is similar but it "works".

what i mean is that you basically need a full RED Company sitting in the same place to be in "command". a visual "representation" of the command lines(like CMx1) would greatly help there to see how often these guys are "not" in command, despite beeing quiet close to their next HQ(see my first post on the last page of 1.08 Bugs thread).

so, if they would not be able to give support by area fire when they are not in command, they will more or less never be

so to tie it to the "questionmark" counters meight be a better idea in my view if the RED C2 situation stays like that.

the delay could be simply governed by the expirience level of the unit + a slight modifier "in command/not in command" wich adds also some time on top, or not if in command.

especially in WEGO where you have to wait until the end of the turn.

funny thing is i just came up with extensive vehicle area fire at somepoints becouse my units where reluctant to use their given instruments when they see the enemy. if i can get 73mm HE instead of "coax" i surely let em do the area fire dance again and again...if i dont i can watch em useing their coax the whole turn.

if they would use their main armament to engage sighted enemies "normaly", i wouldnt use area fire at all in such situations.

[Battlefront.com]

Cool... a discussion about Borg and God problems! Haven't seen one in a long time, which I think we should pat ourselves on the back for Area Fire has always been, and will always be, one of the biggest problems a game can ever have with the traditional twin issues of Borg (units acting unrealistically coordinated) and God (player having too much information) problems in wargames.

The main issue is that there is no reliable way to determine if a unit should be able to do Area Fire on a particular place or not. Things like a C2 delays are not a good solution. Neither is restricting Area Fire Commands, such as avoiding areas recently vacated by "?" units or occupied by enemy units that they haven't yet spotted. The simple reason is this:

These conventions penalize a unit which shouldn't know to shoot at something it can't see for sure. These conventions also penalize a unit which SHOULD be able to shoot at something it can't see. In other words, such conventions are not able to distinguish between a unit firing in direct support of another unit or a unit firing on a hunch or to cover the advance of a completely different unit.

This is exactly why the game is the way it is. We have never been able to figure a way around this problem and we, quite honestly, don't think that we ever will. What we have been able to do is restrict direct targeting of units that are not actually visible to the player. That's what Relative Spotting introduced. But it does nothing for Area Fire, unfortunately.

We've got no plans to change Area Fire. We think the current system is probably no worse than a restricted system, on balance. Therefore, we don't see our time being well spent on swapping out one con for a pro, and another pro for a con. We've got things where we can swap out a con with a pro and not add a con to the mix, so that's where we should spend our time first

Steve

[Other Means]

This is the 2 main posts I did on it conflated into 1, hope no-one minds the cross-post:

Suggestion:

Area fire should have a delay and weight dependent on tactical situation + C&C (up to a maximum value).

Issue to be addressed:

The players ability to support with fire anywhere, given their “God like” ability to be everywhere on the battlefield.

Associated issues:

</font>

• Lack of player feedback causing an involved area fire process stemming from the unit spotting system.</font>
• Command delays in movement orders.</font>

I’d like to discuss these separately to not diffuse this discussion.

Improvement in game-play change would bring
</font>

• The C&C framework would assume proper, realistic importance.</font>
• The level of planning the player would have to make to play the game well would increase.</font>
• The tactical decisions would mirror those made by a commander in the field in sighting overwatch, ensuring C&C etc.</font>
• Ambushes, hit and run tactics, fighting withdrawals, etc would all be more useful as less instant firepower could be brought against them.</font>
• Unrealistic “lone sniper” recce where the sniper is out of C&C would become less useful.</font>

I feel all these add to the tactical depth of CM - and that’s what I’m playing the game for.

Description

I believe we play CM at 3 distinct levels:

</font>

• Squad leader - we tell each squad where to go</font>
• Company commander – we form the plan that the units conform to</font>
• God – we can see everywhere and have access to all info our units have and can give instantaneous orders to them</font>

The player sees all and knows all, so can act as God. So I think it might be an idea to start limiting his powers.

One of the innovations that CM1 brought us was command delays. I really liked these as I think they illustrated the command net and brought a level of planning to CM. I’d like to see them re-introduced but I won’t argue that here.

What I would like through is similar delays when ordering area fire.




In the situation above, the unit with the thick red line has LOS to the enemy unit, but the MG on the right has no knowledge of it. How would it know to fire on it? In the game he can fire straight away, so what does this do to our tactics?
</font>

• We can advance a squad anywhere out of C&C and not suffer penalties to the way they integrate with the rest of the company.</font>
• We can leave support weapons anywhere and rely on them being able to instantaneously support an advance.</font>

Our tactics are changed because we suffer no penalties for unrealistic play.

Proposed solution

Model the command net in the calling of area fire, the main way the player acts as the central nexus of information. Give area fire a delay and weighting attached to it dependant on the firing units perception of the enemy positions, either via the C&C network or self spotting (all figures etc TBD):

</font>

• If the unit can see the enemy - no delay, maximum fire density</font>
• If the unit has a sound contact - minimal delay, 90% fire density</font>
• If the unit has a tentative contact - medium delay, 70% fire density</font>
• If the unit has no sight of the enemy, the shortest communications delay between any unit that can, via CoC, OR some upper limit (more for WWII), to simulate ad-hoc contact, 40% fire density</font>
• If there is no enemy unit visible to any unit, maximum delay and light “recon by fire” 20% fire density</font>

I'm going to illustrate what I mean with a few examples.

Take this situation I got myself into (purely for demonstration purposes of course).

I ran a Stryker plus squad into a copse of trees, the Stryker came under fire and the squad was basically hung out to dry. But doing stupid things like that *should* have a penalty:

But around this I had support units attached to the same company that could see - or get through C2 - that there were enemies to be fired on:

Therefore under the system I'm proposing - "If the unit has a sound contact - minimal delay, 90% fire density".

This definition should be expanded to include C2 delay (an omission on my part)

Therefore they could area support fire with a slight delay. The player could select each one and give it an area fire order, which would have a countdown above it saying "15 seconds to area fire" or some such. So after the delay the organic support would start to support with fire.

However, at an even greater remove from the action I have M1's in overwatch:

These under the proposed system would be "If the unit has no sight of the enemy, the shortest communications delay between any unit that can, via CoC, OR some upper limit (more for WWII), to simulate ad-hoc contact, 40% fire density"

Therefore the supporting fire from the M1's would take a significant delay in being brought to bear on the enemy.

The player would select each M1 and give it an area fire command, but as the M1 has no *direct* perception there was an enemy there the call for area fire would have to go through the C2 link

"They've got out guys under fire, hit the western area of the woods".

Which would mean the M1's would support after the C2 delay, and with less ferocity, as they are less convinced by the info (if there is any "ferocity" difference due to this is up for debate of course - I just think if you've been told to hit an area and you're not sure where it is or what's there, you're less likely to hit it with everything you've got).

So in this little area of the battle, the player can be everywhere at once, but cannot *act* everywhere at once, so he receives a punishment for poor tactics.

In this actual battle, what did I do? I brought the M1's HE into effect like the hammer of Thor and blew the enemy into mist. What should have happened, and what I feel this mechanic may bring into effect, is that the platoon gets badly shot up before the area fire can make things better for them.

I feel as a play mechanic this would bring a level of planning, tension & reality to the simulation that would have war-gamers (that strange lot) a lot of enjoyment, as you introduce a "strategic" C2 element into play and reward proper, realistic tactics. I know that there may be an impression that gamers hate having anything "taken" from them, but I think the holy grail for wargamers is reality, and I think this introduces a little more reality to the sim.

IMHO of course

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We've got no plans to change Area Fire. We think the current system is probably no worse than a restricted system, on balance.

Steve

Sounds fine to me (at least for WEGO).

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

These conventions penalize a unit which shouldn't know to shoot at something it can't see for sure. These conventions also penalize a unit which SHOULD be able to shoot at something it can't see. In other words, such conventions are not able to distinguish between a unit firing in direct support of another unit or a unit firing on a hunch or to cover the advance of a completely different unit.

Steve

That's exactly it though Steve, any "hunch" should be handled by the ? icon and therefore allow targeting - or less of a delay in getting support fire, and any supporting fire must be asked for in advance or have a line of communication between the advancing units that are in contact and the supporting units that are not. If the supporting unit then gets a ? in an area where fire is originating it takes care of modelling their SA to the extent they'd be willing to fire.

So you have to plan for supporting fire rather than use your God-like position as player to be able to know exactly where to support, which I feel would add a lot of realism to the game, especially when we move to WWII.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

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

We've got no plans to change Area Fire. We think the current system is probably no worse than a restricted system, on balance.

Steve

Sounds fine to me (at least for WEGO). </font>

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...This is exactly why the game is the way it is. We have never been able to figure a way around this problem and we, quite honestly, don't think that we ever will....

Actually, Steve, you already have:

Multi-multi-player (er co-player, er whatever you want to call 2 or more human players on the same side).

I know it's not coming for a while, but when you do finally get around to doing this, it will cut way down on the unrealism of stuff like Area Fire.

[C'Rogers]

If the supporting unit then gets a ? in an area where fire is originating it takes care of modelling their SA to the extent they'd be willing to fire.

But this assumes, as most of the support for area fire delay does, that the area fire is being done as a borg. That the player knows a unit is there but the unit does not.

I will often (in this game or CMx1) fire on buildings/areas that merely look dangerous. Maybe as my role as company commander I reminded my men 'hey we got plenty of bullets, fire away'. Why would they then have a delay?

Personally I think if any measures were implemented the board would explode with many players in anger over why they can't get men to follow orders. It is a tactical simulator, not a command simulator.

Though I would like to command delays as an overall feature return.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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

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

We've got no plans to change Area Fire. We think the current system is probably no worse than a restricted system, on balance.

Steve

Sounds fine to me (at least for WEGO). </font>

[Pandur]

This is the 2 main posts I did on it conflated into 1, hope no-one minds the cross-post:

Suggestion:

Area fire should have a delay and weight dependent on tactical situation + C&C (up to a maximum value)......

.

.

.

.

thats a great idea/sytem. that would make big sense and i dont see any "con" to it(other than time to implement it).

i would gladly take it without "movement" delays, however, they could be back too.

also i think this is usable for WEGO and RT at the same time.

[YankeeDog]

One specific issue wrt Other Means' system: how do you define "Fire Density"?

Unlike CMx1, CMx2 no longer uses abstract firepower ratings. A bullet is a bullet. HE shells send shrapnel flying everywhere, rather than having "blast rating". So there's no number you can multiply by a percentage.

You could reduce accuracy, and/or ROF. That would be accurate for some situations, but not others. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

One specific issue wrt Other Means' system: how do you define "Fire Density"?

I don't know either, which is a bit of a problem

Other Means,

I appreciate the effort but... it doesn't change anything that I've already said. Your system isn't, on balance, better than the way it is now in my opinion. All you're doing is trading off one set of unrealistic parameters for another. It's simply not realistic to restrict the firing of a unit based on abstract concepts any more than it is realistic to restrict its movement. In fact, let me show you the parallel problems people feel need to be solved...

Coordination of Movement Unit A is on one side of a hill, Unit B is on the other. They are not in C2. Unit A spots an enemy unit that it can't kill, so it doesn't fire. At present the enemy doesn't fire at Unit A. Player orders Unit B, which is a match for the enemy unit, over the hill to engage the enemy and prevent Unit A from being slaughtered.

This is not realistic, correct? But how do we prevent such a thing from happening? Well, we could come up with a complex system which somehow doesn't allow you to move the unit over the hill and engage an enemy unit, effectively, unless you have C2 (for example). This system would then render Unit B useless for a delayed period of time (completely arbitrary and therefore inherently unrealistic) until it either established C2 or its artificial penalty clock ran out.

So how is the game supposed to know the difference between someone moving Unit B over to the other side of the hill to, for example, engage a different enemy unit which it should know about? I mean, do we forbid it from attacking the first enemy unit even though it is in plain view and should be able to see it? Do we allow the enemy unit to shoot back, even if it would have otherwise been the second unit to shoot?

So on and so forth. The cascading problems that come form trying to address something this fundamental continue on and on and on. Charles would have a heart attack if I even suggested such a feature

Map Edge Hugging The age old problem... how to stop units from using map edges to gain an advantage that in real life they wouldn't get? Well, we've been over this about 2000 times since 1999 and there has never once been an idea that has survived first contact with people here And it's the same issue... how can the game possibly know what is, and isn't, a legitimate use of the edge of the map.

..

..

..

What happens when we get into these discussions is that the "simple" idea falls short of doing what it needs to do. The idea then morphs into something that is more complex, usually adding some theoretically aspect that isn't practical to code or run. But those issues are usually pushed aside or other ideas tried that aren't any more elegant. And then it really starts to go downhill In the end the "simple" design has become a monster that probably could never work even if someone had the time to code it. By that I mean that the more complex a system becomes for a simple concept, the less likely it will work. And when it doesn't work that requires more and more coding time.

All games face at least one or two ball busters like this. Well, at least for a simulation or other very complex artificial environment. The trick is to make sure that you're getting involved in something that is extremely important before you leap. Put another way... pick the battles carefully.

This area fire issue is a real issue. It's an issue that every wargame I've ever played has. The only way around this is to have a Human umpire that can make the call and handle appeals on the spot. Obviously, that's not possible for us. So as real as this issue is, we're not going to touch it with a 10m pole any more than we're going to touch restricting movement or map edge hugging. These problems have a fairly minor impact on the game, are traditional, and have very little chance of being solved despite major effort. From a development standpoint, if a feature could scream "STAY THE F AWAY OR I'LL KILL YOU AND YOUR DOG TOTO!!", these would do that (only they wouldn't be as nice about it ).

Short answer... we know it is a problem, since it is always a problem with all games. But it simply isn't worth the time to try and fix it. No quick fixes here.

Steve

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Originally posted by handihoc:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by __Yossarian0815[jby]:

Hmm, the ghost campaign for instance is impossible to play without area fire IMO. </font>