Area fire: ideas for more realistical results

[TheVulture]

Move delays suffer from the same problems as area fire, in that the game can't tell between the extremes of a unit is moving because of co-ordination with other units it has no communication with, in response to something happening a mile a way, out of LOS, versus a unit moving in reponse to its immediate situation. Which is one reason I wasn't overly fond of the CMx1 delay system (although I don't think it was attempting to address the god problem of the player co-ordinating movements unrealistically). Low quality units could have a minute's worth of delays doing something very simply, like moving from A to B to break LoS to a tank that hasn't spotted them yet <pictures the NCO sitting everyone down in a circle and drawing a little map in the dirt with a stick to explain the move order...> (yeah, the withdraw order provided some workaround, but I almost never used it succesfully )

You certainly need to have adjustable waypoints if you are going to start putting move command delays back in.

I much prefer the CMx2 system of not having command delays, for the exact same reasons that BFC are against area-fire penalties at the moment: it penalises some perfectly valid moves, whilst ultimately not preventing the main god-problem. Again, I gather it wasn't meant to address that so much as to simulate the delay between the unit leader saying 'move out' and everyone actually getting moving (I may be wrong), but I suppose there is then a case of making the delay also depend on how long a unit has been stationary.

[missinginreality]

I posted this possible solution to the issue in the last thread on the topic, which addresses it not from a time delay issue but from an effectiveness issue; in essence looking at the solution from the other direction i.e apply a negative effectiveness modifier to all unspotted area fire unless the unit is in C2 with a spotting unit.

...............

Maybe it would not be so much as a time penalty as an accuracy penalty then? For instance, a general suppressing fire would I guess be by and large "unaimed" except in the rough direction of building/copse/treeline etc. Thus the chance of actually hitting anything hiding there if not spotted by anyone would be a bit random.

However, say C2 is used to request an MG team to put suppressing fire on a building from an advancing unit that has LOS to an opfor in said building.Now THAT area fire from the MG would surely have a higher percentage chance of suppression?

Thus the penalty would be a negative on accuracy for "unspotted" area fire and unpenalised for "spotted".

In computation terms at all times the program knows that in a certain building there is either a spotted unit or not? Thus area fire into a "spotted" zone would carry a higher chance of suppression than area fire into an "unspotted" zone

I perceive this would have the following effect:

Retaining effectiveness of random unspotted area fire but possible reducing its suppression/effectiveness

Increasing effectiveness of C2 called area fire.

Obviously there would need to be some kind of check internally that the unit providing suprression is actually in C2 with a unit that has LOS to the target. This is where a possible delay could come into play. Delay = increased effectiveness

..................

I believe, though am open to being corrected, this addresses Steve's 3 point check i.e:

1. The unit, through its own senses, suspects or knows about an enemy position but, for whatever reason, can't use direct fire on it at that particular moment that the player has to assign a Target Command. Maybe it was visible the second before, perhaps it is just a spot that looks too obvious for the enemy to occupy. The reason is irrelevant.

Addressed that there is no delay yet the area fire is computationally less accurate than spotted fire.

2. The unit places fire on a location as directed by another unit even though it has no first hand knowledge, or even suspicion, that firing at that location is the right thing to do. The more sophisticated the ability to communicate, the more versatile the weapons are, the greater opportunity for this type of thing to occur. The most common example is indirect fire, since the artillery units obviously are doing Area Fire on something it can't see or couldn't possible have sensed on its own.

Addressed in that an accuracy modifier would not be applied to artillery/CAS etc, it would remain as it stands.In other situations, addressed with a computational effectiveness/accuracy modifier which reduces proportionally to C2 etc.

3. The unit places fire on a location that it doesn't know about and wouldn't know/suspect to shoot at if it were not for the intervention of the God like player. In this case fire is being unrealistically manipulated to yield the best possible result regardless of the realistic chance of such fire happening in real life.

The gnarly one and addressed in all of the above i.e ANY area fire is penalised with a computational accuracy modifier behind the scenes, automatically; however, should the unit in question that is delivering area fire have C2 to a unit that is spotting in that location, it's accuracy penalty is significantly reduced proportional to C2/tech etc.

In this way, area fire generally is always penalised from an effectiveness point of view, for ALL area fire [except arty/cas maybe].However, when the area-firing unit has C2 to a unit spotting, that penalty is either reduced or removed.

[c3k]

It seems to me that the issue revolves around #3. What is the difference between a tactically astute player placing suppressing fire on a SUSPECTED enemy position and placing fire on that same position because his god-knowledge TELLS him the enemy is there?

In case #3A ("A" for "astute" ), there should be NO delay, NO penalty.

In case #3B ("B" for "Blast the place my OTHER unit saw an enemy) there could be an argument for a penalty. If the player knows the enemy is there, it is through knowledge gained by a friendly unit. If another friendly unit does not share that information, but the player knows it, the player can direct the unshared unit's fire with uncanny accuracy.

Now, tell me how to tell the difference, in computer code, between an astute player and one who is using information he shouldn't?

Putting a penalty would create the same problem; now the astute player is unrealistically penalized.

Regards,

Ken

[Lethaface]

Why we want to make it impossible to area fire a location spotted by an 'out-of-command' unit, when it is still possible to move units to favourable positions based on this INFO the player shouldn't have?

In my opinion, the 'gamey' thing is that we, gods, can use info we shouldn't have as the Battalion CO. We gathered this info being the Platoon/(...) leader of an 'out-of-command' squad. We circumvent C2 procedures by passing info from 'out of command' units to our commanders. We cheat.

This results in that we can use a normal perfect viable option, area fire, and transform it into a cheat. If this could easily be stopped, that would be nice. But the core problem is still that we use this info from 'out-of-command' units, that is the gamey thing. In this thread we mostly speak about repressing the most common exploited method which is enabled by this cheat. It however does not help the source of the problem: circumventing C2 procedures.

Now some ideas to fix that would be interesting.

How about blurring the screen when a out-of-command unit is selected? That way it can still follow orders and its approximate position can be seen, however we can't give accurate area fire on units spotted by these units. Just a wild idea

[Steiner14]

Steiner14,

Straw man argument. Might as argue "wargames on computers are unrealistic, so why have wargames".

Correct. I brought it for your straw-man argument of not enhanced realism by a delay to area-fire commands.

AT Guns take 5 to 15 minutes to move, depending on the gun.

5-15 minutes for moving a PAK? The Germans? In WWII? I don't know about the other armys, but that is at least not true for the Panzerjäger.

But now i understand better why you see no big problems, when it comes to the possibility of immediate returning area-fire of all available weapons and why you think a delay of a few seconds couldn't make sense.

A few videos illustrating that it doesn't take 5-15 mintues to move guns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOoWuAvY_ok&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmv3hOb2rvs&NR=1

IMO there is absolutely no reason, why ATGs on a crest, or in well prepared postions should be nailed down by immediate returning area fire, while in reality they would have been brought in safety or even made a Stellungswechsel (changed their position).

What you're saying is that as soon as your AT Gun is spotted you should move it. That's nuts... that's the quickest way possible to lose it.

That's not true. I said, that immediate returning area fire in CM makes it impossible to move ATGs, even if they could move as fast as in reality.

What you are argueing for is that ATGs stay lame ducks that stay nailed down, after they have made their first shot.

In CMx1, almost every ATG that opened fire, was doomed because

1. of way to slow movements over short distances.

2. of the possibility of immediately returning area fire. And i predict that in RT-mode this will become even worse.

OK... so basically you've given up trying to justify why delays for Area Fire are either realistic or a net gameplay benefit?

No i haven't. I have explained in my first post, why a delay is not only very realistic, but why it could offer more realistic results in the game.

You came with straw man arguments like 30 minutes delays being not useful and ATGs "need 5-15 minutes to move".

[missinginreality]

Now, tell me how to tell the difference, in computer code, between an astute player and one who is using information he shouldn't?

Putting a penalty would create the same problem; now the astute player is unrealistically penalized.

I would say it good be looked at the other way around though - that ANY area fire is ALWAYS penalised in terms of effectivenes; however, if another unit has spotting to that area AND C2 in some way to the firing unit then that effectiveness penalty is proportionately reduced. And reduced to such an extent that; when a unit that has LOS to an OPFOR is in comms to an area firing unit, the effectiveness penalty is all but negated dependant on tech/C2 clarity etc.

In that way, anyone using area fire legitimately blindly is suffering what would be a standard reduction in effectiveness; someone using the "gamey" trick would also be thus subject to that reduction in effectiveness. HOWEVER, that effectiveness penalty is reduced if and when C2 exists to an LOS unit.

Thus the 'astute' player is not penalized, the 'astute' player is only dealing with the 'usual' effectiveness of blind area fire. It is the 'extra-astute' player who is firing blind yet in C2 with an LOS unti that is 'rewarded' with an improved effectiveness.

[Steiner14]

It seems to me that the issue revolves around #3. What is the difference between a tactically astute player placing suppressing fire on a SUSPECTED enemy position and placing fire on that same position because his god-knowledge TELLS him the enemy is there?

In case #3A ("A" for "astute" ), there should be NO delay, NO penalty.

That's not true. I already mentioned, that it takes time for the NCO to give area fire orders.

So even under the best possible circumstances, a delay is realistic.

IMO it's not correct, that even the unit's TacAI always simulates the amount of time to aquire and identify targets, but area fire works instantly.

[c3k]

I disagree with both above postings. There should NOT be a delay for area fire. Now, you can argue the other side, but here's my view: The platoon is advancing by bounds; the experienced squad leader, knowing they're in the heart of enemy territory with no firing restrictions, advances into view of a cluster of trees (or huts, or a steeple, etc.). "Let's see if we can flush out any bad guys. Hose done that cluster (or hut, or steeple, etc.)." No delay. The men fire. Accuracy/effectiveness will be lower than aimed fire at a known enemy, but there should NOT be a delay.

In the case of the argument that it takes time to issue fire orders, well, then it takes time to issue ALL fire orders. Your need for a delay in case #3 will thereby need to be applied to cases #1 and #2.

If my men are disciplined and trust my command they will open fire immediately upon the target I direct them to open fire upon. No delay beyond acquiring the target.

"Shoot the red barn!" Blam, blam, blam.

NOT "Shoot the red barn!" "Huh?", "Did he just say 'shoot'", "He's not the boss of me!", "WHY am I shooting the red barn?", "Which red barn?", "What part of the red barn?"

So, in game I order my squad to shoot the red barn. Is it to flush out the enemy that I guess may be there? Or, is it because some other unit, unknown to my squad, has located an enemy unit there? And, does that matter? If I were going to shoot the red barn anyway, should I be penalized if some OTHER unit does that also?

These decisions are so very specific it is, IMO, impossible to come up with a generalized rule which would work BETTER than what we have right now.

Regards,

Ken

[missinginreality]

The platoon is advancing by bounds; the experienced squad leader, knowing they're in the heart of enemy territory with no firing restrictions, advances into view of a cluster of trees (or huts, or a steeple, etc.). "Let's see if we can flush out any bad guys. Hose done that cluster (or hut, or steeple, etc.)." No delay. The men fire. Accuracy/effectiveness will be lower than aimed fire at a known enemy, but there should NOT be a delay.

Which is exactly my point too; that area fire should always have an inherent accuracy/effectiveness penalty ongoingly UNLESS the unit is in C2 with someone that is spotting to that point

[stikkypixie]

Which is exactly my point too; that area fire should always have an inherent accuracy/effectiveness penalty ongoingly UNLESS the unit is in C2 with someone that is spotting to that point

But area fire IS already less accurate and effective than aimed fire right now. I don't see how knowing an enemy squad is in a building can make you shoot better somehow.

[c3k]

Agreed: the penalty is already there.

[Drusus]

The real problem here is heavy weapons. Area targeting a building is just as good as targeting a unit in the building. If the pause could be implemented only for heavy weapons (crew served heavy weapons and all vehicle weapons) it would make a big difference.

I do agree that the delay is just a compromise. I think that a 30s to one minute delay would improve the game more than it would take away, but after all it is just an opinion. But 30 seconds does make a difference in certain situations and that is not an opinion. Having a second and third shot out of that RPG-29 does make a difference. Or maybe getting a javelin team out of the building roof before enemy T-72s open fire...

One interesting idea is to allow area targets only to question marks but also give the player the ability to place those question marks at the HQ level. To area fire one would need to first wait the information to move down the CnC. One could have also pre-planned question marks to simulate suspected enemy locations in an attack. Probably impossible to implement due to the problem of how to deny the player the ability to spam the map with question marks.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself here, but apparently it's still not getting through...

Time delays are WRONG to impose on Area Fire. Why? Because they do absolutely NOTHING to fix the fundamental problem, while at the same time restricting things that should have no restrictions (either from a realism standpoint or from a gameplay standpoint). That's it.

Steiner14, you have done absolutely nothing to counter this logic. At best you've made a case that delays might hit some sort of middle ground which won't make the good things much worse, but won't make the bad things much better. I don't see any value in that. I'll also note that if you read my comments correctly, in context, you should see that I've made no "strawman" arguments. Instead, I'm saying that the behavior we're trying to address should NEVER be allowed, so having a tiny delay doesn't do anything to fix it, though it does punish legitimate tactics in a way that is indefensible. So why pick 30 seconds and not 30 minutes? The delay itself has no value to either realism nor to gameplay, so why bother with it?

What is needed is a way to differentiate between a legitimate use of Area Fire and that which is illegitimate, then use that to assign appropriate rules which keep the two separate. That's the thing which nobody has figured out how to do. And why not? Because it isn't possible to make that distinction with a single player as God.

The closest we've come to is the idea that you can only Area Fire within a certain distance of a "?" or known unit. If you can't aim Area Fire at such a location, you don't get to use it. This absolutely fixes the problem which we are trying to solve, and that is unrealistic use of Area Fire on targets that the unit should have no knowledge about. Unfortunately, it also completely kills off "recon by fire", which was (and still is) a common tactical use of fire. Especially back in WW2 when military forces weren't very concerned about causing unnecessary damage or injury to civilians and their property.

So here we are again... right back to where we started... no good solution. Which is why we are going to leave things just the way they are.

Steve

[Drusus]

I just have to add one more example where even a 30 second delay is huge.

In Normandy ATG vs armor duels will be common. The scenario is following: ATG fires at an enemy tank and destroys it. It also gets spotted. There is another enemy tank outside of LoS to the ATG. Move the tank to LoS and area target the ATG. Without delays the tank is very likely going to get the first shot against the ATG. With delay the ATG will likely get the first shot, and maybe even another shot before the armor is able to return fire. In this kind of situation the 30 seconds delay really does something. It is probably going to substantially change how the game is played in those situations.

[c3k]

The solution is simple: anti-lithium pills. Every player takes one before starting scenario. The anti-lithium induces a schizophrenic/multiple personality disorder on demand. Assign a different personality to each squad. Ensure that each of your personalities cannot unduly communicate with another (perhaps assign one as "speaker for all"?).

Ken

[birdstrike]

Just a thought, but if there were a distinction between area firing at a "?" or a known enemy unit and recon by fire, would it be useful to restrict the duration of recon by fire? - so the squad ordered to fire at a spot where no "?" or known enemy is in the vicinity, fires a couple of rounds, then the fire order is canceled automatically. The fire should be long enough to "lure" the enemy out of hiding, but not continously like "normal" area fire - so there wouldn't be asuppression effect or significant casualties.

[M1A1TC]

How about this idea for CoPlay

Player 1: Has control of ground forces

Player 2: has control of Arty and Air assets

They can both communicate via headsets, and coordinate fires

[Battlefront.com]

Druss,

I just have to add one more example where even a 30 second delay is huge.

Not really, because...

In Normandy ATG vs armor duels will be common. The scenario is following: ATG fires at an enemy tank and destroys it. It also gets spotted. There is another enemy tank outside of LoS to the ATG. Move the tank to LoS and area target the ATG. Without delays the tank is very likely going to get the first shot against the ATG. With delay the ATG will likely get the first shot, and maybe even another shot before the armor is able to return fire. In this kind of situation the 30 seconds delay really does something. It is probably going to substantially change how the game is played in those situations.

What would happen in this case is that the second tank moving towards the ATG would be constantly looking around for potential targets. If it moves into LOS with the ATG it would have a chance of spotting the ATG before the ATG spotted the tank. If the tank spots the ATG first, then the tank would fire DIRECT FIRE at the ATG. If the ATG spots the tank first, the tank fires DIRECT FIRE against the tank. It doesn't matter if the tank has an Area Fire Command or not because direct threats override Area Fire Commands anyway.

Now, what is theoretically possible is that the second tank could crack off an Area Fire shot before the ATG gets the chance to fire off at the Tank. And if the tank's round is lucky enough to hit close enough to the ATG (remember Area Fire is inherently inaccurate to an extent), then the ATG is probably done for. If, instead, the ATG isn't neutralized then the tank is likely going to be hit because the tank's firing has made it almost impossible to not see. And in that case, the ATG will be firing direct fire against the tank while the tank is firing blindly using Area Fire.

And I'm also sure that there is many a case where a second tank would be able to know, roughly, where to fire based on how the first tank was killed. But that, of course, would be situationally dependent.

Again, the break with reality here is with the God player. In real life if Tank #2 found out that Tank #1 got killed by watching it brew up, unless Tank #1 radioed it had spotted an ATG (or whatever killed it) then Tank #2 would likely be completely clueless. That's not the case in a game with a single player in charge of everything. The player, instead, can know exactly what happened to his Tank #1 and transfer that knowledge instantly, and without any variability, to what Tank #2 does no matter what the C2 model does. That's where the problem lies and there is no workaround for that other than CoPlay.

Steve