Artillery Plan Fire

[Ardem]

One thing I think is missing in both scenario and playing option is planned Arty Fire (in detail).

Things I would like to see it a more complex fireplan, where you can simulate firing on one spot and then shift the firing to another point after X amount of time.

Also the option to make arty spotters plan only designation, so you don't give them the option to change what they like in game.

I think in particular with german and CW and russian forces Regiment and Higher Artillery were Planned fire more so then on demand fire.

I think at the moment you can simulate these aspects but its not as good as if they were designed implemented.

[Andrew Kulin]

One thing I'd like to see is the ability to somehow instruct the battery that the target to be plastered is located over a defined area rather than as a point target. Nothing more frustrating than having your targeted fire fall in a 20 x 60 m north to south aligned strike zone when the defensive line you want to target runs east to west.

[Ardem]

I know wall fire is possible but, iirc it is more typical to target wide then say firing a close group like you do target.

cause you have to take into account deviation and fall pattern.

As long as artillery is historical accurate in different patterns I wouldn't mind it so.

[birdstrike]

While we're at it, does anyone know if BF intends to give other units than FOs the ability to call in artillery strikes? Like HQs or even vehicles?

[HarryInk]

Good question from Ardem. The Brits seemed to spend a lot of time cuddling up behind creeping barrages in Normandy (and sometimes watching them drift off to the fore while the PBI kissed the mud). Also, looking at the arty fire plan for Australian forces at the Battle of Bardia (doc included in the official history), the detailed planning of where and when and how rapid the firing would be was worked out well before the battle.

BTS have given us preplanned arty strikes in BB & AK. Now it's time to have preplanned creeping bombardments that can start at T10 and run from point X to Y for 5 turns then shift to point Z for another 5. If it was history, then why not game....

[Michael Emrys]

Sounds kind of nice, but I wonder how common it was at this level of play. Somehow, I tend to think of fires shifting targets as more of a higher level thing, although creeping barrages should be available. I guess my problem with this is that I can see opportunities for abuse. Maybe it should be a separately purchasable feature and there should be a rarity factor infolved.

Michael

[Steiner14]

It was quite common for the Germans. I.e. 15 minutes barrage on area A before attack and then 100 meters further. Or light-signals for the arty-spotter to move the barrage further.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Sounds kind of nice, but I wonder how common it was at this level of play. Somehow, I tend to think of fires shifting targets as more of a higher level thing, although creeping barrages should be available.

Hi Michael,

Speaking only for the CW (and mid-43 – 45), both types were about equally common, and which was used really came down to the preference of the Div GOC and the CRA. For example, in Italy, 2(NZ)Div became notorious for highly complex fireplans consisting largely of barrages with additional concentrations, whilst 4(Ind)Div became equally notorious for fireplans consisting of a complex series of pre-planned concentrations. The Canadian Corps in Italy tended to follow the Indians, while in NWE there seems to have been a mix of concentrations and barrages.

Not surprisingly, the tactical situation and the ground dictated things to a certain extent. Barrages don’t work terribly well in mountainous or steep terrain, while on the other hand concentrations are dependant on good prior intel (and good survey, maps, etc, but for the CW in this period that’s a given).

AIUI, the Americans never really got into barrages, and only used concs.

So for the CW both barrages and concs are applicable at the CM scale, but only as pre-planned missions, with very limited (or nil) control over the advancement of the fireplan once a scen has started. Having one or the other would be a tremendous improvement over CMx1, but having both would be more accurate.

BTW, a very good case could be made for only having pre-planned barrages and concs available in Assault or Advance type scens, or whatever the equivalent is in CMx2.

Regards

JonS

[ozi_digger]

FWIW. As the engine stands at the moment the only way to really simulate the pre-attack fire plan was in a pre-made scenario, not QB.

I was tinkering with a scenario and you add a lot of shell-holes and suppress the defending side to a certain degree with a smattering of Pinned, Panic etc. The only problem was the lack of dust etc that the barrage threw up for the attackers to advance behind. At the time Steve (I think) asked for a poll of stuff to be included in CMx2 and I shortsightedly just asked for 'dust'!

IMHO the incorporation of a fireplan in CMx2 would be a revelation and a more realistic work-around of the problem I highlighted above. A pre-planned barrage using some sorta method like 'covered arc' gets my vote.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Speaking only for the CW (and mid-43 – 45), both types were about equally common, and which was used really came down to the preference of the Div GOC and the CRA. For example, in Italy, 2(NZ)Div became notorious for highly complex fireplans consisting largely of barrages with additional concentrations, whilst 4(Ind)Div became equally notorious for fireplans consisting of a complex series of pre-planned concentrations. The Canadian Corps in Italy tended to follow the Indians, while in NWE there seems to have been a mix of concentrations and barrages.

Yeah, I know. What I was trying to get at is that all that was controlled at the divisional level or above. So I am trying to conceptualize how that would look at the CM level, and what would need to be different from the existing preplanned arty attacks. And how realistic is it going to be to put that in the hands of a company/battalion commander? Maybe I am just imagining problems where they don't exist. Could be. But I'd like to know that this is being carefully thought about.

Michael

[Baneman]

This might be slightly off the topic, but do you think CMx2 will allow us to drop indirect fire on a location that can't be seen ?

In my first ( or was it second ) PBEM recently, I observed some enemy infantry run behind a wood. Immediately my CO turned to the mortarman crouched next to him and said "Drop a few rounds behind that wood Heinz". To which the redoubtable Heinz replied "Nein, I can't see there and nor can you."

It seems a bit odd that off-board artillery can target anywhere ( albeit poorly ), but the guy on the battlefield can't chuck some "500m ahead" behind a hill or wood etc. The whole point of indirect fire is that it is ..er.. indirect.

Now I'm guessing there was a game/code limitation or somesuch for CM1 games, but would it be possible to implement something like this in CMx2 ?

[Michael Dorosh]

How often would a FOO in real life "drop rounds" on a target that was not observed, either by himself or the company/battalion to which he was attached? I'm guessing "not very often."

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, the on-map mortars in most cases carry too few rounds to go throwing them away on completely speculative targets. Who knows where that infantry went after it went behind the hill? they might have done a bunk and run off the map. Your arty behind the lines might be more assured of resupply, but in real life might even be a tad reluctant to give priority to that kind of target.

Michael

[Baneman]

Um, well, the location to be dropped on couldn't be seen, but it was known that the enemy were there ( in the example ) as they'd been observed in transit.

Now I don't know about you, but if I knew there were snarks and boojums just over the hill, I'd throw a bit of suppression that way.

Considering the number of threads here proving how much small arms fire was unaimed or fired "blind" just to keep the enemies head's down, I would have thought that a few mortar rounds would be no problem IRL.

The spotter for offboard is going to have to give a grid location, hence it makes sense for the targetting to be worse, but a mortar guy should be able to "throw some beyond that wood" - after all, he CAN see the wood and one presumes he can estimate distance fairly accurately.

I'm sure the GI's in the Hurtgen got plenty of "no-LOS" mortars fired at them.

'Twas just a thought - why can offboard do it and onboard not ? Was there a game/code limitation ?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Baneman:

Um, well, the location to be dropped on couldn't be seen, but it was known that the enemy were there ( in the example ) as they'd been observed in transit.

Now I don't know about you, but if I knew there were snarks and boojums just over the hill, I'd throw a bit of suppression that way.?

Given that neither one of us is a trained artillery observation officer, I'd say your guess was as worthless as mine.

If you don't know that an enemy unit is in "x" location, how would you know it was also free of civilians or friendly soldiers? I don't think it worked that way in so-called 'civilized' areas.

And what value is there in "suppressing" a unit that you are not directly in contact with? Isn't suppression really a means of keeping heads down as you get in closer to destroy them?

[Baneman]

Eehhh, the example starts getting complex - in this example, I'm advancing on a hill and I know there are enemy on the reverse slope. I want them a bit shaky and/or wounded when I get there.

If I had off board arty ( with advance planning ) or a TRP, I'd hammer the reverse slope. Lacking these I want to do it with my onboard mortar.

Anyway, I shall "phone a friend" who IS a trained artillery spotter ( although I don't know if he ever worked with something as small as mortars ).

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How often would a FOO in real life "drop rounds" on a target that was not observed, either by himself or the company/battalion to which he was attached? I'm guessing "not very often."

And I'm guessing 'quite often'

CMx1 (and probably CMx2) doesn't allow FOOs to observe based on secondary effects - smoke, dust, sound, time of flight, etc - all of which can be used to place rounds accurately onto an area that is out of direct LOS, albeit less accurately than a target that is in clear LOS, of course, and via a somewhat extended adjustment procedure.

As it stands in CMx1 you can either:

1) see the ground at the foot of the target, and therefore target with 100% accuracy (which in itself isn't a terribly good model), or

2) you can't see the ground at the targets feet in which case the mission becomes a complete lottery (so much so that I suspect very few try it more than once or twice in their CM-playing career).

It doesn't matter how close to LOS the target is, if you can't see it, you're screwed.

Personally I find it annoying, but overall I think it's an ok compromise and can live with it, given the other limitations of the arty model.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How often would a FOO in real life "drop rounds" on a target that was not observed, either by himself or the company/battalion to which he was attached? I'm guessing "not very often."

And I'm guessing 'quite often'

CMx1 (and probably CMx2) doesn't allow FOOs to observe based on secondary effects - smoke, dust, sound, time of flight, etc - all of which can be used to place rounds accurately onto an area that is out of direct LOS, albeit less accurately than a target that is in clear LOS, of course, and via a somewhat extended adjustment procedure.

As it stands in CMx1 you can either:

1) see the ground at the foot of the target, and therefore target with 100% accuracy (which in itself isn't a terribly good model), or

2) you can't see the ground at the targets feet in which case the mission becomes a complete lottery (so much so that I suspect very few try it more than once or twice in their CM-playing career).

It doesn't matter how close to LOS the target is, if you can't see it, you're screwed.

Personally I find it annoying, but overall I think it's an ok compromise and can live with it, given the other limitations of the arty model. </font>

[JonS]

how often would a FOO call in rounds on a spot to which he had no knowledge or even inkling of enemy activity?

You mean recon by fire? Heck, most fireplans were recon by fire on a grand scale. I'd say that most missions were called in on unobserved or only partially observed targets ('partial' as in 2 men seen moving about, target assumed to be a pn or coy posn and adjusted and FFE'd as such).

However in Banemans particular example the enemy had been clearly observed, but then moved to a posn out of LOS. So the 'FO' knows there is an enemy there, or at the least in the area. So your question, while valid, isn't relevant to his example.

By "observed", I'm including secondary effects ...

... which is something that CM cannot, and does not, do.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />how often would a FOO call in rounds on a spot to which he had no knowledge or even inkling of enemy activity?

You mean recon by fire? Heck, most fireplans were recon by fire on a grand scale. I'd say that most missions were called in on unobserved or only partially observed targets ('partial' as in 2 men seen moving about, target assumed to be a pn or coy posn and adjusted and FFE'd as such). </font>

[JonS]

really? I thought I'd answered it twice already. Perhaps including other stuff in the answer was confusing for you. Here are the relevant bits again:

"I'm guessing 'quite often'"

"You mean recon by fire? [...] I'd say that most missions were called in on unobserved ... targets."

[Michael Emrys]

All very well, but Baneman isn't talking about offmap fire called in by an FOO. He's talking about an onmap mortar not being able to saturate the far side of a hill with enough rounds to suppress whoever might be hanging out there. And my answer still stands: a mortar team on the move (and that's what I assume an onmap team to be) isn't carrying a mountain of ammo to just dump off that way. Chances are, such a mortar is going to be in the 45-60mm class and it's not at all likely to be larger than 81mm. Just look at how many rounds such teams are issued in the game. They would run out of ammo before they had suppressed anybody. And that's why they weren't firing unobserved fire. They had to make every shot count.

Michael

[Baneman]

Ok, I'm probably hampered here by my lack of experience in CM - I would have used a turn of fire ( 1/3 to 1/2 of the mortar's ammo ) to paste behind the trees where I knew a whole infantry company was located.

If 1 turn of mortar fire is going to be totally ineffective in the game, then I can understand where you're coming from. I had envisioned it being fairly effective - at least enough to make them hit the dirt and hence arrive in front of me a turn later than otherwise ( especially if they were MOVEing rather than ADVANCEing ) - which would have given me time to set up a warm welcome.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Baneman:

If 1 turn of mortar fire is going to be totally ineffective in the game, then I can understand where you're coming from. I had envisioned it being fairly effective - at least enough to make them hit the dirt and hence arrive in front of me a turn later than otherwise ( especially if they were MOVEing rather than ADVANCEing ) - which would have given me time to set up a warm welcome.

It would if it were observed, and therefore accurate. Mortar rounds falling, say, 50 meters off to one side aren't going to slow them down if they have any experience at all. Might even make them speed up to get more room between themselves and the danger zone, you see. It simply would not be common for a mortar team to waste any of its precious rounds on such a speculative target. They'd wait until the enemy broke cover and hit them then when they would have a chance of actually inflicting some casualties.

Michael

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

How often would a FOO in real life "drop rounds" on a target that was not observed, either by himself or the company/battalion to which he was attached? I'm guessing "not very often."

That's right, you are guessing. Another example of you using the principle of personal incredulity to assert or deny a hypothesis.