Lanzfeld Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have been testing the Fire Support Training battle quite a bit and I have discovered a very strange thing indeed. This possible bug is in Iron setting. Now we all know that as soon as the Strikers see the static enemy tanks (T-54's) they pop smoke and reverse. I put my FO in the FSV and creep it up the left side of the map where there is a little rise in the land and I notice that at EXTEME hull down to the tanks the FO's in the 1131 can see the tanks but the driver and gunner of the stryker cannot. This is good and I assume that it is because the FO's are using the FS3 on top of the 1131 to spot the enemy tanks. This makes sense. What does not make sense is that when I call air support and try to do a point stike on the tanks the game wont let me mark the tanks location because it says that they are out of LOS. My FO's have a tank icon and I see the tanks but I cannot mark them. How is it the game is saying that I can see the tanks and tank icons in "Ironman" setting but have no LOS to them? Does this make sense? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7thGalaxy Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I have noticed this in a variety of places, where a unit can definatly see an enemy - you can click on the enemy icon and the unit highlights, and when you click on the unit the enemy is visible, but I cannot target the enemy, or even call indirect fire down on the position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 What I have observed is that an enemy vehicle unit (such as a BMP or a static T-54) is "visible" to a given friendly unit but is not targetable by said unit. Using the Target tool to determine actual LOS, I find that the "visible" unit is actually not in LOS of the friendly unit. Apparently an abandoned vehicle that is spotted once remains spotted even if the unit that spotted it does not actually have LOS to it. That said, what if the enemy unit in question is still active (not abandoned)? (If it is abandoned, the presumption is that it would not have moved from its last-spotted location.) In that case... I shall have to do more testing and observe the results thereof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 It would be very usefull and realistic(?) if the stryker 1131 crew would not freak out and reverse/smoke when they are hulldown to a far away tank. The 1131 being hulldown means just the optics are above the burm right? Seems that this is what the vehicle was built for no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonecrusher-17 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Not necessarily, Although FSV designers have always envisioned a vehicle (M981, M7BFIST, currently revised Knight Platform) that could 'square off' with a Tank/IFV and bring FS to bear quickly, its never come to fruition. As a former FISTer I would also argue that it shouldn't. Maneuver shooters, especially now with LRAS3, combined with FOs working with maneuver PLTs are the way to go. FSVs are typically used as C3 assets for maneuver shooters/FO at the CO/BN level as means for a CDR to control FS assets. Their mix of commo and digital FS systems allow the personnel in that platform to plan and execute fires for the commander. Occasionally with BRT/COLTs you'll see these vehicles perform C4ISR or RSTA duties, but typically in a defensive role or in a deliberate attack or raid. Thats because the commander can employ a solid observer plan with dedicated security for that high value asset. The BFIST is the closest that the Army has come to a vehicle that can 'square off',but without a TOW system the BFIST still can't take on armor or even a hornets nest of RPG-7s for long. Just because you're hull down with LOS doesn't mean you feel secure, esepecially if you don't have the biggest gun in the fight. As a 13F I always felt more secure about 500m away from my M981 on a dismounted OP rather than sitting in a big metal box easily seen by thermal sights attatched to smothbore cannon or ATGM launcher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Well thank you for the info. You would know more then I. I guess in my head I saw them as poking the sensors above the burm ala AH-64 Longbow and lasing or whatever. The difference between theory and reality maybe??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonecrusher-17 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Well thank you for the info. You would know more then I. I guess in my head I saw them as poking the sensors above the burm ala AH-64 Longbow and lasing or whatever. The difference between theory and reality maybe??? Ah, you never know. There's probably someone out there who knows more than you and I both. I just know what I know based on what I did. My luck: there is a Program Manager from FT Sill on this forum, who desgined the M7 and Knight vehicle, who will tell me I'm smoking rocks of green-plant deriviative. They would use thier sensor suite in this manner if they were lasing. I would also if were conducting operations which involved having to get that close with any vehicle. But I wouldn't use my FSV in that situation unless it was my only option to get accurate effects. I'd use my FOs or Manuver Shooters first because they typically will have the fire-power in thier PLT/CO to keep an AFV/Tank supprssed while the fire support assets are in the process of being delievered. I assume thats my my FSNCO made me carry a GPS, SINCGARS, and MELIOS as an FO along with 50lbs of other 'stuff' in my ruck. Or he just wanted to make me suffer. Ether way hauling 2/3rds of my body wieght on my back wasn't fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmfan Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Not necessarily, Although FSV designers have always envisioned a vehicle (M981, M7BFIST, currently revised Knight Platform) that could 'square off' with a Tank/IFV and bring FS to bear quickly, its never come to fruition. As a former FISTer I would also argue that it shouldn't. Maneuver shooters, especially now with LRAS3, combined with FOs working with maneuver PLTs are the way to go. FSVs are typically used as C3 assets for maneuver shooters/FO at the CO/BN level as means for a CDR to control FS assets. Their mix of commo and digital FS systems allow the personnel in that platform to plan and execute fires for the commander. Occasionally with BRT/COLTs you'll see these vehicles perform C4ISR or RSTA duties, but typically in a defensive role or in a deliberate attack or raid. Thats because the commander can employ a solid observer plan with dedicated security for that high value asset. The BFIST is the closest that the Army has come to a vehicle that can 'square off',but without a TOW system the BFIST still can't take on armor or even a hornets nest of RPG-7s for long. Just because you're hull down with LOS doesn't mean you feel secure, esepecially if you don't have the biggest gun in the fight. As a 13F I always felt more secure about 500m away from my M981 on a dismounted OP rather than sitting in a big metal box easily seen by thermal sights attatched to smothbore cannon or ATGM launcher. Can you repeat this without the alphabet soup? I'm ex-army and even I couldn't follow most of what you said. However, if I get the general idea of your argument, my conclusion is that dedicated FS vehicles are pretty much useless and even a detriment in the game when it comes to dealing with scenarios that involve calling indirect fire on almost any kind of armor; or even RPG armed infantry if your close enough. Either your going to get your vehicle killed, or you'll never get a chance to for fire because of the vehicle AI's protective behavior. It's a realistic reflection of what happens in the real world, but also an inadvertent counter point to a "feature" touted by the game designers. If that's the case our FS vehicles, at least in these situations, revert back to being personnel carriers with sophisticated optics that are useful in a) getting our forward observers to good observations points, and giving us a slight edge in being the first to spot advancing armor under the right conditions. Their built in behind the scenes bonuses to FS spotters are not really applicable because of practical employment considerations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Either your going to get your vehicle killed, or you'll never get a chance to for fire because of the vehicle AI's protective behavior. It's a realistic reflection of what happens in the real world, but also an inadvertent counter point to a "feature" touted by the game designers. If that's the case our FS vehicles, at least in these situations, revert back to being personnel carriers with sophisticated optics that are useful in a) getting our forward observers to good observations points, and giving us a slight edge in being the first to spot advancing armor under the right conditions. Their built in behind the scenes bonuses to FS spotters are not really applicable because of practical employment considerations. Vey well put CMFAN. My point exactly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Evidently, having your FO/FIST/JTAC in a BFIST or FSV is optimal, but having the BFIST/FSV itself parked under full cover (out of LOS of any armor and/or ATGMs) with the FO/FIST/JTAC dismounted is more optimal than getting the BFIST/FSV knocked out and all the guys inside WIA/KIA. (How's that for alphabet soup? ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonecrusher-17 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Can you repeat this without the alphabet soup? But whats the fun in that? Essentially they are another Command and Control asset with a sweet sensor suite (yes pun was intended). Without citing chapter and verse/paragraph in the manual the developers seemed to pick-up on this idea of the 1131/M7A3 being a sophisticated set of eyeballs. Because the have updated sensors and commo tools. I have noticed that the FSVs have a slightly quicker response time for effects on target, and if you use the 'target' command to establish LOS you have less adjusting rounds and a faster/more accurate Fire For Effect phase. I'd agree with the TTP (Tactics Techniques Procedures) you both use. There only one acronym. "inadvertent counter point"= Isn't that a 'song' by J.S. Bach?, Dur..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 The game correctly simulates the problems with using the FSV as a spotting tool against relatively short range targets. What it cannot simulate, due the limits of current computer hardware on map size, are the benefits of using it that way in a situation where you might have a 5 or ten kilometer LOS that allows it abilities to be fully utilized from beyond the range of direct fire retaliation, or even detection for that matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Recon Hummers have much the same issue, they really shouldn't get within a kilometer of any enemy what so ever. They are far to valuable in their intended role, and nothing but vulnerable targets in range of enemy ground forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmfan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The game correctly simulates the problems with using the FSV as a spotting tool against relatively short range targets. What it cannot simulate, due the limits of current computer hardware on map size, are the benefits of using it that way in a situation where you might have a 5 or ten kilometer LOS that allows it abilities to be fully utilized from beyond the range of direct fire retaliation, or even detection for that matter. Good point. In general because of computer hardware limitations I think we fight in maps that are smaller than they should optimally be for the type of weapons in our arsenal. This becomes most apparent with Armor, ATGMS and U.S. optics/surveillance systems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.