Details of Air and Artillery Support

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The new Artillery and Air Support systems are in and working as of a few days ago, [snips]

It all sounds fine so far. A few questions:

1. Does this mean that players will be able to arrange reinforcing fires? It sounds as if it does (I get the arty battalion assigned to support me, plus fire from the other battalions in the regiment).

2. Are there different fuzing options for the rounds?

3. Are there options for firing different sheafs?

4. Are there options for firing at different rates?

5. Are ammo stocks of different natures recorded separately (HE, WP, BES)?

6. Can non-observer elements perform Artillery Target Indication, as for example a squad leader calling the fall of shot to an FO who hasn't himself got eyes on the target?

None of these seem incompatible with the system as so far described, which seems to be a considerable improvement on the CM system.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

[snips]

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.

Given that calls for fire should be going over dedicated gunner nets, I doubt that this will make a great deal of difference. As I think Ian Hogg once put it, once the words "Fire mission" have been said, people stop talking about things like fresh supplies of socks.

All the best,

John.

[Battlefront.com]

John,

1. Does this mean that players will be able to arrange reinforcing fires? It sounds as if it does (I get the arty battalion assigned to support me, plus fire from the other battalions in the regiment).

It is all up to the Scenario Designer. He can stick you with a pair of M109A2 and that's all you get. Or he could hate you and give you NOTHING

Obviously in real life a commander can tap into resources in ways that are not predicted ahead of the battle. This concept does not work in a game setting since whenever the US player feels the going gets tough he can sit back and call in all sorts of hurt on the enemy forces. Pretty tough to do scenario balancing when one side has that ability and the other does not.

2. Are there different fuzing options for the rounds?

Yup. Like munition mix the fuzes are set by a table buried in the code, not by the player. So you might find a mix of ground and airburst HE from the same fire mission, or all airburst, or all ground, etc.

3. Are there options for firing different sheafs?

Yes and no. The ability to coax this behavior out of the simulated FSO is there, but there isn't an explicit Mission Parameter to set this. Fire Missions are, to sound redundant, mission orientated. You, the player, specify the intent and the simulated FSO figures out what is the optimal solution. Makes for a far more efficient game experience.

4. Are there options for firing at different rates?

Same as the above answer.

5. Are ammo stocks of different natures recorded separately (HE, WP, BES)?

Yes. However, for the larger stuff the chances are you'll never run out of anything. The scale is such that it is practically impossible to run down the supply available to such assets. Air Support is another thing completely. You will likely exhaust whatever is given to you if you find yourself calling in Air Support.

6. Can non-observer elements perform Artillery Target Indication, as for example a squad leader calling the fall of shot to an FO who hasn't himself got eyes on the target?

This is simulated by the C2 chain of command. It is assumed that the unit calling in the support is the eyes with the brains might be further up the chain. That's why if you have a brain unit, like the FIST, calling in support everything goes so much faster and smoother than if you have a squad leader calling in the fire and routing through the FIST.

None of these seem incompatible with the system as so far described, which seems to be a considerable improvement on the CM system.

I like Brits a lot. They have a gift for making understatements I often think that if my father-in-law (English ex-pat) called up and said he had a "slight incident while out running" that we should expect to see him in a cast upon our next visit

Steve

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Cool. Sounds good.

I hate that we still cannot see aircraft though. Oh well, gotta same something good for CMx2-WWII. :cool:

[dima]

Steve,

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?

[MikeyD]

Time to resurrect my dusty old CMBB suggestion that if there are no visible aircraft we at least we see aircraft shadows that reasonably approximate the platform used. A10 shadows. Apache shadows. Predator drone shadows.

Of course in CMSF this will be less important than in WWII games since overflight of the target is largely restricted to dropping iron bombs nowadays. An accurate aircraft shadow is less vital if the aircraft is circling at 20,000 ft or hovering four mile out.

[Battlefront.com]

Abstracted to the point that you don't see anything related to the aircraft, except the outgoing munitions from them.

Steve

[Darkmath]

It would not be easier to miss the 30mm autocannon bullets of the A10.

With a ROF of 100 Hertz (in other word, 6000 bullets per minute, but i prefer the scientific notation ) and tracers, it will looks like a Hollywood laser ray. (nowadays , modern warfare begin to looks like the past Sci-Fi . Next time is the Robocop soldiers with DU explosive M82 barretts!!! :0 WOOT Drones ED 209 wouldn't work of course )

About the sheaf, would not it be better to let the player choose,at least an option like normal/wide sheaf?

[ August 21, 2006, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[imported_Wildman]

Just remember that the USAF/USN/USMC are dropping bombs from anything over 12,000 ft or so to ensure they are outside the MANPAD envelope.

A-10s are a little different and even the fast movers are using the gun alot more, but in general aircraft are most definately NOT coming below that magic line in the sky.

So they are dropping a weapon from 2-3 miles away at 12,000 ft up (more like 20,000 for a JDAM). You'll never see the shadow and probably never even hear them until the bomb hits.

Heck the BUFFs are dropping JDAMs from even higher up than that.

[Lee]

Wow, the fire support sysytem sounds really good. Great work, Steve!

Yeah, an A-10 is not like other aircraft, they are meant for serious CAS in high threat environments and are super tough. Strafing runs from an A-10 are extremely unpleasant for the bad guys and a lot of fun for our troops to watch.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, an A-10 is not like other aircraft, they are meant for serious CAS in high threat environments and are super tough. Strafing runs from an A-10 are extremely unpleasant for the bad guys and a lot of fun for our troops to watch.

Unless they are strafing our troops, in which case they are probably even more unpleasant

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by 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,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Lee]

Steve: If you are referring to that unfortunate incident with the Brits in the first gulf war, they went where they weren't supposed to go, into an A-10 free fire zone. Which is a very bad place for anyone to be.

[imported_Wildman]

No he was talking about the Canadians that were just hit in recent weeks. No details out in the airwaves yet.

[MikeyD]

"4. Will deconfliction be in operation..."

Huh! Yah learn a new word every day. Never saw 'deconfliction' before though the word is in the Oxford Englsh Dictionary online (I just checked). Didn't Israel lose a helicpoter over Lebanon when it inadvertantly flew between an artillery battery and its target?

[Andreas]

Or the USMC f*ck-up in 2003.

There are some to choose from.

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

Lee,

I was talking about your incident, Wildman's incident, and most especially the Marines at Nasiriyah (which Andreas linked to). IIRC there was also a fatal friendly fire A-10 incident in the First Gulf War.

MikeyD, yeah... I don't know how long "deconfliction" has been in use as an official military term. First time I heard it was in 2004 in a talk given by the Marines FAC during Fallujah 2. I know Israel lost a few helos but I can't remember their cause of destruction one way or the other.

Steve

[Andreas]

There's an anecdote about a fighter-bomber getting into the barrage during the landing on Okinawa. It just vanished. Probably a side-effect of the Philadelphia experiment.

But I can't remember anyone using a fancy term to describe it.

All the best

Andreas

[flamingknives]

And there was an incident in 2003 when an A10 strafed a troop or so of British CVR(T).

[imported_Wildman]

"Deconfliction". This is the reason most areas are going to kill boxes if possible. They then color code them to show the level of control needed and who is shooting in them.

On a side note, given the level of air involvement what will be the frequency of Blue air in scenarios? While I understand that will be up to the scenario designer, I'm not quite sure most people have an understanding on just how much airpower is available...especially if you assume that the US has complete Air Superiority like we currently enjoy.

Example from CENTCOM:

there are 4 6hour vuls (vulnerable times) that are generally further broken down into 2-3 hour increaments. So...B-1 (12 JDAMs) cover two 3 hour blocks in the day, F-15E (2 GBU-12, 2 GBU-38, 4 SDB) cover 4 more 3 hour Vuls and F-16s (2 GBU-31 or 4 GBU-38) cover the rest.

In other words, there should NEVER be a time when airpower is not available for use, and this on ON-CALL CAS, not counting CAS or interdiction support independent of those ON-CALL CAS sorties.

Heck a perfectly valid scenario would be to have the Syrians in a convoy being hammered by a 2 ship of F-16s at night without any other Blue assets because the Vipers are pulling interdiction duties 150 miles past the FLOT.

[Lee]

I'm pretty sure some Brits were lost, and, of course, the vehicles they were in, in that incident in the first gulf war. Somehow or other they ended up driving into an A-10 free fire zone, where no one is supposed to go. The A-10's were told anything in that area is a hostile and to take it out, so they did. I don't recall hearing about this more recent stuff (maybe I heard about that one situation a few years ago), but it's not terribly surprising. These things happen, even though we try hard to prevent them. Such is the fog of war. Look at some of the bombing missions in WWII, talk about friendly fire, ouch!

It reminds me of that Apache attack chopper pilot in the first gulf war. The marines on the ground kept telling him there were no friendlies in the area he was targeting, even after he asked them repeatedly. So finally he fired a hellfire and hit the vehicle being targeted, then seconds later there is word that a friendly LAV has been hit. The pilot was stunned when he heard it. Sometimes it seems no matter how careful you are some FF casualties are going to happen. They always do, if it's a large operation going on for a long enough period of time. Sooner or later something will go wrong.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, not to mention the downing of the Special Forces Blackhawk, fully loaded, over northern Iraq during the mid 1990s. They crucified the pilots when something like 11 checks and balances failed. Terrible all the way around.

As far as I know each of those A-10 incidents had different reasons for happening. The common element was someone incorrectly telling the pilots to engage when they shouldn't have. FBCB2 and BFT can help reduce the chances of this happening in the future, but it will still happen. If there is a Human in the mix, a screwup will be sure to follow at some point.

Steve

[Scipio]

My god, can you please stop talking in riddles? What the hell means :

MOUT

FIST

JTAC

SOL

FASCAM

OIF

(...)

By the way, it's sad that aircrafts are unvisible as they are in CM1x. I guess even something simple would be better than nothing. Maybe this will be changed in future titles?

[flamingknives]

MOUT - Manouvres Over Urban Terrain

FIST - Some kind of forward observer

JTAC - another kind of forward observer

SOL - Sweet Out of Luck

FASCAM - FAmily of SCaterable Mines

OIF - Operation Iraqi Freedom

Also

FBCB2 - Computer magic that lets you know where your guys are and tell them what to do etc.

BFT - Blue Force Tracker. More computer magic that saturates the battlefield in radio signals. And tells you where your guys are.

[Scipio]

THX (this means "thanks" )