Discussion - Arty/Air Support Improvements

[Flanker15]

Well the arty system is pretty perfect as is, only improvements would be:

-more types (syrian air, more planes etc)

-sound effects (distant cannons, shells flying over and plane/helecopter engines)

-weapon models (model the individual missiles and bombs)

-model the planes and helicopters (not with fancy flight and damage models, just something to add to immersion)

-Precision ordinance selection (be able to tell a plane to use a certain number of a particular weapon instead of just choosing itself).

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Flanker15:

-weapon models (model the individual missiles and bombs)

Playing the Factory Outlet scenario last night caught a missile / rocket in mid-air at the end of a WEGO turn. I was able to zoom the camera right in on it as it was caught in mid flight. At first I though it was just a tracer, but no it was a missile or rocket of some sort.

[rogue187]

I don't have any problem with the air/artillery requests, they seem pretty strait forward to me. I was also wondering if there are any planes to model any of the aircraft? I know in real life, most people in a battle would never see the F-15 or F-16, but just see the bomb blast. However, the Apaches and A-10s might be more visible doing close air support. Frankly, I don't care if they fly in a strait line, I would love to see an A-10 come roaring in from off the baord and blasting a T-72 with its gun and then flying off the board again. THAT WOULD ROCK!!!! But I bet it's more easier said then done.

[M1A1TC]

Ok, I seem to remember that last CM games had several states of building condition

Example: Building texture would change and show holes, wires, broken windows, etc after several rounds. Building would then collapse.

Now I dont see that. Buildings just collapse. Why was that change, or do I have memory issues?

[Sgt Joch]

Now that I have more game time under my belt, I just wanted to say I like the way air/artillery is handled, it's flexible and you have many options, but it is easy to use.

[panzermartin]

Well artillery UI is superb but not actually working for me. Most of the times it falls some hundred meters off target, all of the times if I play syrians. What's wrong with these guys? And adjust/cease fire dont seem to work either.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Ok, I seem to remember that last CM games had several states of building condition

Example: Building texture would change and show holes, wires, broken windows, etc after several rounds. Building would then collapse.

Now I dont see that. Buildings just collapse. Why was that change, or do I have memory issues?

When I destroy buildings I rip a very large box like hole prior to collapse

[SlowMotion]

One arty comment - in manual p.77 it reads

"As a general rule, any US ground unit can theoretically request both types of Support, while only a few specialized Forward Observer units can call in Artillery for the Syrian side."

Has the game been changed after this part was written? In a scenario I was playing the Syrian side didn't have any FO units, yet they could get arty support. Not just HQ units, but things like HMG-teams as well.

[M1A1TC]

BFC

What happened to mortar sections? There were screenshots of them, and they dont seem to have made it in the game.

What about mortar Stryker?

Game still needs Fire Ajust fixed, its not working(never did) Cant believe that wasnt caught by the beta-testers.

[thewood]

The mortar sections for CMSF are out back smoking with the mortar sections from Theater of War.

[L.Tankersley]

The biggest piece of feedback I would offer about the artillery/air system has to do with the actual targeting process where you click on the map to designate your target.

In CMx1 (sorry to dredge up that hoary old chestnut) you could call in fire on a target that wasn't in your spotter's LOS (albeit with a pretty punishing accuracy penalty).

In CMx2, apparently you cannot. And more significantly, you also can't invoke any of the area/linear fire patterns unless the specific points the user must click on are within the spotter's LOS. I can understand this in the case of a point target, sort of, but imagine you're calling fire in on a city block. If you can't see the center of the target area, you can't target it precisely. And if you can't see a point at the appropriate radius from the center point, you can't select that radius. This strikes me as (a) annoying and ( unrealistic. Especially since sometimes you can work around this through spotting e.g. an upper building level at the appropriate radius, but other times you cannot. I can see an argument for not letting you call in fire on something you can't see yourself, I guess (although at least for the US, with all their advanced SA capabilities in the model, one would think that this information would be disseminated between units quite a bit more quickly than it is in-game), but it seems to me that you ought to be able to allow selection of various impact patterns without requiring LOS to the (pretty much completely arbitrary) points on the ground that the user must select, since these are artifacts of the UI, and not the system being modelled.

[M1A1TC]

Well, in RL, you can just call an arty strike on a certain grid point, without have any eyes on target. All you need is a 8 point grid reference point.

[Hardcharger]

How about some smoke rounds?

[Bradley Dick]

I love the new system too, but I've always been a big hater of the LOS requirement.

Line of sight might be required to call in accurate adjustments, but it is definitely not required for a fire mission. We have maps in the military. They have grids on them. Of course, the idea of my spotter being a private or some crazieness and calling down artillery on friendlies is pretty terrifying.

[Stew]

I'm also puzzled that we can't seem to select indirect fire targets/patterns that are not in LOS. You would think that in the age of portable GPS, this would be possible. Perhaps this simulates a reluctance to "fire blind" into a battlefield with lots of friendly units around (as opposed to a pre-battle barrage, where friendly fire is less of a concern). Still, i'd be nice to have to option, albeit with reduced accuracy (which is also my recollection from CMx1).

[LarsS]

The new system is great.

I would just like to see shorter response times for helicopters after they've first arrived and engaged. I mean, if a helo is close enough to engage one target with the 30 mm, why do I have to wait 5 min for it to engage another right next to the first one?

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Well, in RL, you can just call an arty strike on a certain grid point, without have any eyes on target. All you need is a 8 point grid reference point.

Sure; I imagine that the concern is with you (the player) doing this based on knowledge that the guy actually making the call for fire wouldn't have IRL. But since there's no requirement that there actually be a spotted enemy unit anywhere within the strike area, I don't know that I really buy that.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Well, in RL, you can just call an arty strike on a certain grid point, without have any eyes on target. All you need is a 8 point grid reference point.

..well yes you can, but you shouldn't! In Afghanistan you have two differing sets of JSP ROE in place. Don't want to drop rounds into the dead ground and then go pick up the bits of children lying around.

Look at the Nasiryah screw up, where the Hogs were cleared in hot, with no eyes on target. Lots of dead Marines.

[tharawdeal]

I think that a simulation should allow you to make the decision to do things like call for fire out of LOS. Even if they're not always smart decisions, and may even violate ROE, that's war. Only the outcome of the battle can ultimately decide whether such an action was effective or not.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by tharawdeal:

I think that a simulation should allow you to make the decision to do things like call for fire out of LOS. Even if they're not always smart decisions, and may even violate ROE, that's war. Only the outcome of the battle can ultimately decide whether such an action was effective or not.

Can't argue that. It is a game, not an aid to training. My only point was that while technology allows such actions, the game may want to consider the down sides. ..or not, as the case maybe.

[Truppenfuhrung]

Let says that CMSF simulate the reluctance of army to drop shell on a "target" without having the proper intelligence.

Seem fair.

[tharawdeal]

In my opinion, CMSF treads a very fine line between game and simulation, which, again IMO, is why the CM series has appealed to people over the years.

I understand why calling for fire out of LOS could be undesirable in a game. Certain terrain features are almost always bound to contain defenders: tall buildings (in a city), buildings (in a rural area), trenches, orchards, etc. The ability to bombard them to dust before moving a single unit can really hamper a scenario designer's vision for how the action will play out.

One could also say that the inability to call for fire out of LOS is simulating the reluctance to drop shells without eyes-on intel, but unless there is some explicit reason why it can't be done (limited resupply, unwanted damage to infrastructure, inevitable civilian casualties) it should be possible. It might seem like a throwback to the WWII policy of "shell first, ask questions later," but in a scenario where you know every warm body you will come across that isn't wearing your uniform is an enemy, let 'er rip. Easier to waste a few shells than to expend your men.

[Battlefront.com]

The LOS requirement is, indeed, one of those "damned if we do, damned if we don't" design calls. The player isn't bound by Rules of Engagement which real commanders have. Heck, in Nasiryah the Marines weren't supposed to use artillery in the populated areas at all. After getting shot to pieces for a while the BN commander said "f it" and shelled the bejuzus out of a particular neighborhood with 155s. As far as I know he wasn't sent packing for that because, well... it was justified from a military standpoint. Not that the military doesn't have some black marks on it for hanging commanders out to dry for doing exactly what they should have.

OK, where was I? Oh yes! Well, the LOS requirement is one of those "on balance" it's better and more realistic to require it than to not. As other have pointed out, some maps are so obvious where the enemy can be found all you'd have to do is just call down a strike within the first few seconds and you might end the battle. Same issue in CMx1, but it's worse in CM:SF because the reaction times are shorter for the US, the accuracy MUCH better, and the artillery generally more lethal.

If CM:SF becomes a military trainer we will definitely remove the LOS restriction, but we'll also probably have some sort of ROE system in the game where a Human "umpire" decides if the commander violated ROE or not.

Steve

[tharawdeal]

It might be interesting if the scenario designer could "check a box" and specify:

1. You have no fire support.

2. You have fire support on positively identified targets only.

3. You have full fire support.

But overall, I think it's a minor issue, and I understand why things are the way they are.

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1. The LOS requirement is, indeed, one of those "damned if we do, damned if we don't" design calls. .

2. If CM:SF becomes a military trainer we will definitely remove the LOS restriction, but we'll also probably have some sort of ROE system in the game where a Human "umpire" decides if the commander violated ROE or not.

Steve

1. Not so, IMO. I can drop an effect on any part of the planet that is in range of a system. GMLRS (not in the game?) makes this easy, possible and even desirable. - So the mature technology enables it and has done for some time. Making it IMPOSSIBLE is an game restriction - which may have benefit, but the reason why ROE generally forbids it, is that dropping unobserved rounds is pretty stupid and un-proffessional.

2. Now, if the game becomes a training (as opposed to education-which it is close to being now) tool, then the adherence to ROE will be impossed in the briefing and the debrief, BUT -with no way to assess civilian casualites (unlike VBS 2), the issue of ROE will remain pretty subjective. - WHICH IRL, it is not!

Point being, for game and simulation purposes, you could enable non-LOS call for fire. It's possible, but the modifier should be some calulation to show civilian casualties.