Details of Air and Artillery Support

[Battlefront.com]

The new Artillery and Air Support systems are in and working as of a few days ago, though I haven't seen it yet myself (probably Monday). I know Charles had to make a few tweaks toward the end so some of the minor stuff might be a little different than originally designed.

Fire support was the most difficult stuff to do. I've been working on this design, on and off, for the past 2.5 years. The main problem is the UI. In real life it is extremely complex and therefore in CM that complexity has to be modeled to some degree or support would be too easy, too precise, and too predictable. The system we have now can be seen as a labor of love since we wanted to get it right, but had to work so freak'n hard to make it so. Here is basically how it works...

A unit is selected and Support (either Air or Artillery for US, Artillery only for Syrian) is chosen. A window appears that shows all the Assets available to the player game wide. This is called the Asset Roster. Details about how well connected the unit is to that Asset, what the Asset is doing at the present time, estimated delay time, and a nice graphical profile are shown for each Asset. The player selects an Asset and it appears in the main UI and the Roster disappears. The displayed information is called the Support Panel, which takes up space formally occupied by the Team Panel (shows info about soldiers, weapons, and vehicles). There is a little more info about the Asset here, such as Ammo. In the Team Panel there is a list of steps, or as we call them Mission Parameters, that CM walks the player through in order to get the specifics of the Mission set up. They are a different for Air and Artillery, with variations of specific choices depending on the Asset chosen and some other conditions.

When the player has finished setting the Parameters he Transmits the Request. The length of time depends on how many "hops" the Request has to go through and how good the links are for each hop. A Transmission can be stopped dead due to a broken link or seriously delayed because it has to be rerouted. This means the unit placing the Request is of the utmost importance. If the unit doesn't have a good means of communicating then things aren't going to go so well Adjusting fire has to go through the same process, so again the unit doing the Request should be carefully chosen. FIST, JTACs, and dedicated FOs are going to have a better time with this because they have more direct communications with the Assets. Also, the FIST and JTACs have a lot of authority, so they can more easily get their missions pushed through.

What I mean by the latter is the player can assign Assets to specific Formations. This simulates Priority Fire. Say for example 2x 81mm Mortars are assigned to 1st Platoon, B Company, 1st Battalion. When a unit within 1st Platoon wants these mortars to come crashing down, he gets them pronto and with less room for problems. But if 2nd Platoon, A Company, 2nd Battalion wants 'em... well, he's got a lot of "hops" to do in order to wrestle control away from 1st Platoon. And yes, we simulate the chain of command up the Brigade level, so even though you won't ever have more than a couple of companies and some platoons at one time, they can be from different chains of command (if that is desired by the Scenario Designer).

A TON of factors go into deciding how, when, where, to what extent, blah, blah, that the Support Fire actually comes into play. The skill of the spotter in relation to the Asset, for example, is key. A JTAC and an A-10 are going to get a lot more done, with less chance of a problem, a lot more quickly than if Joe Bob Squad Leader asks for help. Sometimes the spotter isn't even qualified to call in a particular Mission for that Asset, and so that spotter is SOL. This places a realistic emphasis on the real life dedicated units whose job it is to call in fire while at the same time not unrealistically preventing other units from calling it in themselves. If they can, that is.

We all know that the Soviet fire support system is, just like in WWII, highly centralized and fairly ridged. When there is enough time to plan for fire, the system works great. But it sucks for on the fly stuff and it is simply not designed for just anybody to get in there and start directing fire. The Syrians were trained and armed by the Soviets and Russians, so these same legacy issues have been handed down to them as well. It is not surprising, either, since the reasons why the Soviets kept their system, instead of adopting a "Western" fire control system, is because of their different emphasis on tactical doctrine and command. What this all boils down to is that the Syrians are going to find their support, when available, to be quite limited. Oh, and it probably won't last long either!

Laser guided and GPS munitions are explicitly simulated, as is the angle of attack. Missions that require an aircraft to get LOS and/or identify a target before engaging can not engage until they have achieved the requirements. Friendly fire is also simulated as well as a chance of the Asset figuring out that it's making a mistake without the player having to manually stop the Mission (though it certainly doesn't hurt to try that too!).

The spotter can define the pattern of shell fall, as rate of fire and the duration. A mission can be specific, such as taking out a single bunker or generalized such as eliminate everything within a 100x50m box. Specific types of targets can be selected too, such as telling an aircraft to go after all AFVs in a given location or go after all infantry or go after a specific AFV or go after a specific infantry formation, etc.

CMx2 has a few simulated abstractions to deal with AA and counter battery fire. This post is long enough so I won't go into the details. Suffice to say that off-map support can have a few unexpected problems, unlike CMx1.

OK, all sounds great, right? Well, there must be some stuff we don't have, right? Correct. Here is a brief list:

1. No FASCAM. This munition appears to have fallen out of favor with commanders after having to deal with the aftermath 1st hand in OIF. The dud rate is too high and, as far as I know, no FASCAM has been used since the early days of OIF (and only a few times at that!).

2. No detailed simulation of the batteries or the aircraft themselves. These are both abstracted concepts, not directly simulated elements. If they were directly simulated you'd have to mark your calendars for late 2007 release.

3. No visual simulation of aircraft. To do this would require 3D models, flight physics, AI, and explicit simulation of AA assets and their effects. This is a huge mountain of work and simply not worth delaying CM:SF for several months just to make things look pretty. The simulated effects, including AA fire, are in the game so there is no negative impact on the combat simulation element.

Hmm... well, I think that's all the stuff we don't have in that's worth mentioning.

All in all, it is a damned sweet system with extremely quick, easy, and efficient UI on top of it!

Steve

[dima]

3. No visual simulation of aircraft. To do this would require 3D models, flight physics, AI, and explicit simulation of AA assets and their effects. This is a huge mountain of work and simply not worth delaying CM:SF for several months just to make things look pretty. The simulated effects, including AA fire, are in the game so there is no negative impact on the combat simulation element.

So will Aircraft and AA fire look like in CMBB or abstracted to the point that you don't even see AAA tracers?

[Michael Dorosh]

Sounds good...looking forward to seeing this level of realism in the WW II titles also.

[akd]

1. Will the ordnance be visually simulated? It would be pretty cool to see a JDAM or Hellfire zip from off-screen.

2. Will helicopter support be handled the same way?

[Renaud]

Laser guided and GPS munitions are explicitly simulated, as is the angle of attack.

I get the idea that yes, you will be seeing individual hellfires and GPS bombs flying in from offmap.

Thanks for the update Steve!

[hellfish]

Very interesting. I'm almost willing to debate the usefulness of FASCAM, though.

Oh, and what kinds of assets will be available on map? I assume 60mm and 81mm mortars, but what about 105mm guns or 120mm mortars? Do the Syrians have the Vasilek system?

I don't suppose we'll have M109s or 2S1s for direct fire support?

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Sounds good...looking forward to seeing this level of realism in the WW II titles also.

100% agreed.

Joking aside, VERY interesting news, thanks a lot for the detailed update, Steve!

[Homo ferricus]

Howabout Syrian Katyushas as support during the closing of the US campaign, you know, for when they get desperate.

[rudel.dietrich]

A few questions

Is radio traffic density modeled in any way? I would assume as more assets are being called their is a greater chance of delay and a break down in the chain.

Is ECM simulated in any way? This can be done in limited ways on a tactical level to prevent the enemy from using communications.

For Syrian unites without radios, will they be able to use runners? Or will they be unable to make support requests?

[rudel.dietrich]

2. Will helicopter support be handled the same way? [/QB]

This is about the only thing I would be willing to let the game be delayed for.

Helicpoters HAVE to be in the game in some fashion. They are a intrical part of modern warfare. I imagine they would work sort of like UAVs.

Simply pick an area you want them to focus on and they will add in their support weapons. I don't mind not being able to see copters or fixed wing craft. 99% of the time you never even see the asset on the battlefield. You usualy just hear the last few seconds of the incoming ordanace and them here the explosion.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

You have to admire the Soviets, who despite all the limitations of their type of government, managed to have a "fairly ridged system."

On a more serious note, the approach you describe sounds as though it'll work, though I am interested in the possibilities of jamming comm and GPS. A prox fuze popper would be easy to bring into play also. Certain command vehicles are fitted with these, at least in the Russian army.

Also, wanted to let you and the gang know that Future Weapons this Sunday is repeating the episodes with the Predator, Excalibur, M107 Barrett and other pertinent matters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[oren_m]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

For Syrian unites without radios, will they be able to use runners? Or will they be unable to make support requests?

I belive that they will do what Hizballah did in S. Lebanon.

They will relay heavily on cellular networks, up until the point the US forces will figure it out and bomb the cellular antennas.

Hey....maybe you guys will model that?

Oren_m

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by oren_m:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

For Syrian unites without radios, will they be able to use runners? Or will they be unable to make support requests?

I belive that they will do what Hizballah did in S. Lebanon.

They will relay heavily on cellular networks, up until the point the US forces will figure it out and bomb the cellular antennas.

Hey....maybe you guys will model that?

Oren_m </font>

[Aacooper]

This sounds pretty good, and when the WW2 version comes out it will allow any US unit with a telephone or radio to call for support! It doesn't mean they'd get it, but that's part of the excitement.

[Homo ferricus]

hmmm, idea just popped in my head, will Syrians be able to use EMPs or jammers of sorts to either seriously stall or completely break down US Army radio traffic?

[Battlefront.com]

Couple of quick answers:

Yes, helos are in for sure, but like all aircraft they are not visually simulated. They have a pretty good chance of being pushed out of the battle, especially in MOUT environments. One big lesson came out from Iraq early on... keep the copters away from built up areas unless you really have to. IIRC Fallujah 2's CAS was about 95% fixed wing because of the danger posed to helos.

Oh, and yeah... of course you guys will have access to Spectre Gunships. For those situations when you absolutely must make something gone, there are Gunships. In their crosshairs you don't want to be!

As for counter, counter-counter, and counter-counter-counter electronic and sensor warfare... we'll see what we can do. It's such an unknown to us that we're not sure how to simulate this realistically. So for the moment we aren't planning on doing much of anything with it.

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

I've got it!!! The Syrians coat their entire country in tinfoil, thus scrambling all radio communications of the American forces!

[Dogface]

Thanks for the update Steve. I have to say the more I hear the better it sounds.

[Salkin]

With these two very different sides clashing, will charles think up different AI routines for them ?

I'm mostly wondering about strategic AI here.

//Salkin

[V]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and yeah... of course you guys will have access to Spectre Gunships. For those situations when you absolutely must make something gone, there are Gunships. In their crosshairs you don't want to be!

I bet thats gonna look pretty.

[cassh]

Thanks for the info Steve.

Quick questions:-

1. Can a mix of ammo be fired from an artillery asset - i.e. could a mix of illumination and HE be fired from one gun section/battery?

2. You mentioned targeting choices - if one selects a point target (bunker) to be neutralised does the battery automatically cease-fire when the spotter deems the target destroyed/combat-ineffective or does the player have to intervene to halt the arty fire?

3. Can C4I systems be damaged/destroyed like a tank losing a track or gun damage in CMx1 - so could an infantry squad's radio or an AFV's antennas be damaged or destroyed - temporarily or permanently breaking comms to support assets?

4. Will deconfliction be in operation when both CAS and arty are available?

[Blofeld]

sounds very good, any screenshots coming?

[Battlefront.com]

Forgot to say that the incoming munitions will be shown, at least to some extent. We aren't going to go nuts making 3D models that specifically look like each munition, but there will be more than a blob shown

AI coding is indeed going to be an interesting task. We'll see how that goes.

cassh,

1. Can a mix of ammo be fired from an artillery asset - i.e. could a mix of illumination and HE be fired from one gun section/battery?

Yes. The player doesn't have control of this, but based on the Mission Parameters CM will "mix" things according to what would likely be used. Fortunately, this is largely how it works in real life anyway. The Fire Control Officer hears what the mission is and what the spotter wants to acheive, goes to a chart, and then orders up the optimal mix based on SOPs. The thing that bugs us is that the SOPs can be tailored by the unit, so it isn't as static as we would like it to be.

Bottom line is that things will be interesting, and fairly realistic, but not quite as flexible as it might be for certain, specific situations. The trade off for the last 2% realism for UI and gameplay focus is well worth it.

2. You mentioned targeting choices - if one selects a point target (bunker) to be neutralised does the battery automatically cease-fire when the spotter deems the target destroyed/combat-ineffective or does the player have to intervene to halt the arty fire?

When the mission is something specific, then once destoryed fire is called off. SOP for something like a bunker would be to call in each round individually anyway as far as I know.

Our goal was to make the Support system as automated as possible without affecting realistic flexibility to customize things for a very specific circumstance. That's why it's taken us 2.5 years to come up with this system

3. Can C4I systems be damaged/destroyed like a tank losing a track or gun damage in CMx1 - so could an infantry squad's radio or an AFV's antennas be damaged or destroyed - temporarily or permanently breaking comms to support assets?

Yes.

4. Will deconfliction be in operation when both CAS and arty are available?

(I answered the question wrong! Here is the edit) I don't know what we can do here. It is really tricky stuff in real life and extremely difficult. Simulating when x weapon should be disengaged so that y weapon can be employed, then how to switch x back on when y has finished up is not an easy task to figure out. Right now our plan is to not do anything with deconfliction because it would mean a much deeper simulation of off map elements and having to introduce UI to communicate what is going on to the player.

Steve

[ August 19, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[WineCape]

Much obliged for the info Steve. Speaking of which, a few bottles of this 2003 Shiraz will indeed go with me to a massive Cape Town party tonight (in 3 hours time) with some Italian/Portuguese girls & friends. Prost!

[ August 19, 2006, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[akd]

Good stuff.

June 9, 2006

2nd Lt. Zack Zilai, from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, maintains radio contact with an Apache helicopter pilot during an aerial traffic control point mission near Tal Afar, Iraq. (by Staff Sgt. Jacob Bailey)