An idea for a better Artillery Interface

[c3k]

Gents,

I've already posted about my ideas to give the player a better grasp on how many missions can be called in, the ammo used, the ammo left, etc., here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84222&highlight=artillery

Now I've thought about this some more. Another gap in the artillery UI is at the impact end of the mission. Or, to put it differently, what will my mission give me on the map?

If I call in a SHORT/QUICK on an area target with a diameter of 200 meters, the result would be far different than the same mission on an area target with a diameter of 20 meters. How can I, the player, tell what I need?

Have no fear, I am here!

Right now we can have these types of targets:

What I would like to suggest, is to add the number of impacts which will occur in that zone given the options the player selects for the mission. For example, if I choose a Quick/Short I will get a certain number of rounds. (Hey, right now I have NO idea how many, but that's what my idea at the linked thread addresses.)

So, if I select an area to be targeted, and I have a known number of rounds coming in, can't we tie the two of them together? That way I could SEE the density of what's coming in.

Now, I DO NOT want to know the exact impact points (if it were even possible). No, I just want a graphical depiction of what my artillery mission looks like.

See this picture, where the red dots are the number of shells coming in evenly distributed in the target area.

Now I can see if I need to increase the duration or type of mission, or if I've called too many shells, or if I have the ability to affect more ground by increasing the target radius.

Of course, the impact density is just a theoretical image. In game the shells will not hit just so. We all know that.

Another possibility is, since I'm not an artilleryman, giving me some idea of how effective each shell will be. I don't know the casualty radius of, say, a 155 shell. We can show that with a ring around the impact point. Now I, the player UNDERSTAND what I'm calling for!

Here's a picture:

Of course these will be included in my personal copy of v1.2; right?

Seriously - some sort of interaction with the player to improve the artillery UI would be great. My measles dots are one way of doing that. It is visual, it is quick, it provides instant feedback without overcontrolling artillery.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Ken

[Apocal]

What I would like to suggest, is to add the number of impacts which will occur in that zone given the options the player selects for the mission. For example, if I choose a Quick/Short I will get a certain number of rounds. (Hey, right now I have NO idea how many, but that's what my idea at the linked thread addresses.)

Duration - determines the number of rounds to use per mission:

Quick - 2-4 rounds

Short - 6-12 rounds

Medium - 12-18 rounds

Long - 20-28 rounds

Maximum - exhausts ammo supply

So, if I select an area to be targeted, and I have a known number of rounds coming in, can't we tie the two of them together? That way I could SEE the density of what's coming in.

Now, I DO NOT want to know the exact impact points (if it were even possible). No, I just want a graphical depiction of what my artillery mission looks like.

Does any real world system replicate this capability? I'm almost certain it's up to an FO's training and experience with regards to getting the right density onto a desired target.

[c3k]

Apocal,

Thanks for the manual reference for rounds per mission. I have run missions (maximum) which used 70 rounds.

Now, I am not an artillery FO. I assume an FO's training and experience will guide him on his decisions on what specific parameters are desired for a given mission. I have none of that training or experience. This would provide that feedback.

As for any real world system providing this capability, that isn't a factor. This is a game. Hopefully it is a game which can be FUN and REWARDING from the first button click until the game is set aside years later. Why should a customer have to play for many, many hours to gain this knowledge?

Thanks,

Ken

[Apocal]

Apocal,

Thanks for the manual reference for rounds per mission. I have run missions (maximum) which used 70 rounds.

Now, I am not an artillery FO. I assume an FO's training and experience will guide him on his decisions on what specific parameters are desired for a given mission. I have none of that training or experience. This would provide that feedback.

Huh? You've surely called fire missions in-game, right? Since Marines has come out I've probably called down more mortars and artillery than any FO in the history of indirect fire.

As for any real world system providing this capability, that isn't a factor. This is a game. Hopefully it is a game which can be FUN and REWARDING from the first button click until the game is set aside years later. Why should a customer have to play for many, many hours to gain this knowledge?

Thanks,

Ken

In this way, it makes sense as something on the lowest level of difficulty. I can see a new wargamer not understanding the effect of fires. But someone who's been consistently playing longer than a month or two? Come on, they should know by then, unless they've been deliberately avoiding the support panel like a vampire avoids daylight.

[theFightingSeabee]

c3K,

I like the idea. Regardless of realism or experience or whatever, it's just more intuitive. The key for me is just to see a simple number of how many rounds will be shot, without having to remember or refer to a manual.. If I click short light, how the hell many rounds is that and how long does it last? A simple number would be easy enough and great, as well as rounds remaining.

If you want realism, put out a target reference point. Have the arty shoot at it, then click a button that pops up a box, and you punch in some numbers for a simple shift mission: Put in the direction, distance, etc, and add how many and what type of rounds you want, and how long you want them to fall, and how long of a delay if any.

I'm also still adamant about the ability to shoot arty on the back side of a hill or building. Not being able to do so seems awkward and incorrect.

[c3k]

Apocal,

Thanks for the feedback. I disagree with your view.

Playing Red with some arty: if I select medium/medium I have to wait up to 17 minutes for incoming. If, after the rounds land, I realize that the area I selected is too large for medium/medium to be effective, I can only adjust fire. What does that do? It can only shift the impact. If I want more rounds, I cannot click "Continue until I shout myself hoarse telling you to stop." No, I've got to go through the entire process again, to include an additional 17 minute delay. That's wrong.

An intuitive, visual, feedback BEFORE the first rounds come in would improve gameplay.

Thanks,

Ken

(And I've had many a beer with real FO's - in fact, just lately it was two nights ago - and there is NOTHING in this game which is "realistic" about how an FO would call in a strike. Oh, and that's fine by me. I would not pay a nickel for "CM:FO Trainer".)

[Apocal]

Apocal,

Thanks for the feedback. I disagree with your view.

You are right, it is wrong. We should have a "REPEAT FIRE MISSION" button somewhere.

I find that occassional misallocation of artillery to actually help from a multiplayer gameplay standpoint. It certainly would make it easier to be conservative but effective with your artillery.

I just imagine I'm the CO, turning to my FISTer/FO/FSO, etc. saying, "this is what I want, make it happen."

[Battlefront.com]

We're not planning any significant changes to the Artillery UI (and I must stress the UI, not the artillery system or it's features!!) for the near term. While c3k's suggestions aren't necessarily bad, they aren't at all easy to implement. Our time would be far better spent on other things which arguably are more important.

Still, I would like to see some sort of "Repeat Mission" feature. As has been pointed out here and before, it shouldn't cost much time to fire the same mission again. Arguably even if the battery has subsequently fired at another target inbetween (i.e. the FDC still has the info from the last time).

And Apocal is very much correct when he says:

I just imagine I'm the CO, turning to my FISTer/FO/FSO, etc. saying, "this is what I want, make it happen."

This gets into the "many hats" problem that CM inherently has. In real life the amount of control is defined by the guy calling in the strike. If it is a Rifle Squad SGT he gets almost no control, if he is the FIST he gets a TON of control. But the FDC, which is operating under SOPs assigned by the Battalion and/or Brigade CO, has the final say on what happens. One Major I spoke with joked about when he was a Captain in Afghanistan... no matter how many times he requested WP as the spotting round he never got one

When I was designing the Artillery and Air Support mechanics I had to decide what level of control the player should have. Players want basically all the control possible, and with some justification since they are also in theory wearing all the hats. So instead of having a convoluted system where the amount of control varied depending on who you selected to fire, you basically get pretty much full control all the time no matter who you select. Since the whole game is unrealistically within the player's control, it's not inconsistent to give the player this sort of control for Artillery/Air.

But we didn't want to take it TOO FAR in the direction of FDC Simulator. So we approximated the FDC in that we prepackaged some of the results and do not let players get too specific.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks. I'm sure your time is at a premium, so I appreciate that you took time to read this, think about it, and respond.

In lieu of a "Repeat Mission" command, how about add a "Continue" command? That would keep the same rate of fire on the mission currently underway. That would obviate the need to specify type and duration, plus is seems a bit more real life. "Keep it coming, just like that!", is a quick radio call in any language. It gets stopped by either a "Cease Fire" or an out of ammo condition.

The "Repeat Mission" has a place, but in a two hour battle in which I've fired 4 or 5 missions, how do I specify which mission gets repeated?

I agree that it should be possible and it should result in a much quicker response time. I'm just not sure how you plan on doing it (unless it's just a gleam in your eye at this point).

I still like my measle dot idea. (Oh, I will lay claim to that as the working description of the impact/blast icons.) You say it'd be hard to implement: are you some sort of girly-man programmer? Too hard? Bah. Get to work. I want v1.2, CM:Normandy, the Brits, and a WHOLE NEW Arty/Air interface. And I want it tomorrow!

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, a "Continue" Command would be a LOT easier to implement than a "Repeat Mission" Command because, as you point out, that means having to track and display all previous missions OR have some fancy AI in there to figure out that is what you intended. Neither one of those things is going to happen I've made a note about "Continue" as a possible thing to include. It will be more important for Normandy since both sides have far more problems with getting artillery coming down on target than Blue in CM:SF does (Red, on the other hand... )

The problem with your idea is that it must be dynamic in order to be functional. That requires a lot of work, so while I agree that your idea would give the player more feedback I don't think it's worth bumping anything already on our list. Remember, our list is already 10 years long so bumping a LOT of stuff is necessary for it to ever see the light of day

Steve

[Piecekeeper]

I would really like to see that list....release it when you are retired.

[RadioactiveMan]

As long as we've got the battlefront admin in this thread I have a question regarding artillery: If I have a forward observer in a fire support vehicle is it better to call the strike in while the observer is selected, or while the vehicle is selected? Or is there no difference? How about if I dismount the observer? If I move him out of contact with his vehicle, or if his vehicle explodes? Conversely, is the fire support vehicle effective at calling in strikes if the field observer has shed his mortal coil?

And by "better" I mean faster response time, more accurate fire, etc...

[Battlefront.com]

Observers in vehicles setup for fire support are the best way to call in strikes. Dismounted the observer loses the use of the equipment in the vehicle, especially the FS3 system. Fire support vehicles without observers don't give much (any? I forget) benefit since it is the combining of the trained observer and the equipment that make the magic happen. Having anybody else in that vehicle, other than a qualified observer, just doesn't add up to much.

Steve

[Lanzfeld]

Did I read that the spotter has to be unbuttoned in a certain Marine vehicle in order to use the FS3?

[cmfan]

Observers in vehicles setup for fire support are the best way to call in strikes. Dismounted the observer loses the use of the equipment in the vehicle, especially the FS3 system. Fire support vehicles without observers don't give much (any? I forget) benefit since it is the combining of the trained observer and the equipment that make the magic happen. Having anybody else in that vehicle, other than a qualified observer, just doesn't add up to much.

Steve

The problem with observers in vehicles (with FS3) right now is that as soon those vehicles spot any type of armor they pop smoke and retreat out of LOS making them completely ineffective if you are trying to call for artillery in an area with enemy armor in it. I understand this is the AI protecting the vehicle, but it really robs FS3 equipped vehicles of a great deal of their potential.

[Lethaface]

cmfan,

Good point. I wanted to post if a while ago but forgot all about it. Perhaps dedicated fire support vehicles and/or recon vehicles can have a slightly changed protected behaviour?

The protective AI does a wonderfull job for most vehicles, however when trying to use a Stryker Fire Support vehicle it only creates a logistical chaos: The observation point saturated with smoke, the possible enemy aware of this smoke and thus position (especially harmful against a human opponent) and last but not least; smoke prohibits LOS and thus makes the fire mission impossible