Off-map mortars ridiculously inaccurate?

[afreu]

Hi,

I bought the game this week and started playing the "Road to Montebourg" campaign. It's a great game and I enjoy playing it immensly. BUT I now have repeatedly experienced a tiny little nuisance, that threatens to suck all the fun out of this game.

During campaign play I noticed that off-map mortars are incredibly inaccurate. In the current mission, I've a platoon HQ targeting a hedge 180m to the front. I designated line targets for two sections of 81mm mortars. The HQ team sits safely behind a hedge, it is not under fire and not hiding and the team is Rested. However, all of the spotting spots for the two mortar sections land in the same positions, ca. 70-100m away from the target. The full barrages land in the same positions, widely off target.

I've seen similiar things in prior missions. While in this case no friendly troops were harmed, there were other cases, in which a "lucky" spotting round landed 200m off target and took down half a squad.

QUESTION: Is this by design or a bug? If the inaccuracy is intentional, mortars and other artillery do not seem to have any use, besides pre-planned barrages.

[vetacon]

This has been remarked upon elsewhere. I've experienced it in that campaign too. However, i've also had extremely accurate off map mortar fire - in the same games as i've had wildly inaccurate barrages. AFAIK Steve hasn't commented yet on whether this is by design or might be a bug.

[Martin Krejcirik]

I did a lot of testing with US howitzers and mortars (mainly to learn how long the different fire missions are, because the artillery GUI is totally unfriendly and the manual lies) and never seen a mission off target. That is in ideal conditions and with veteran spotters. Make sure your spotter can see the area around the target and has radio connection.

[TheVulture]

Hi,

QUESTION: Is this by design or a bug? If the inaccuracy is intentional, mortars and other artillery do not seem to have any use, besides pre-planned barrages.

Design, I believe. Spotting rounds are very inaccurate (unless you get lucky). But, the spotter has to be able to see where they land in order to send corrections to the firing unit. Otherwise the next round will fall somewhere similar to the first one. If none of them are spotted, then fire for effect is eventually called where the last spotting round fell.

In bocage scenarios this is a big problem, since thakns to the hedges almost everywhere is out of line of sight of the spotter; a spotter in one hedgerow trying to call in a mission on another hedgerow isn't going to have a high success rate unless one of the spotting rounds happens to fall in the field between them, which isn't guaranteed.

Whether there are additional possibilities for mis-aimed missions to simulate mistakes by the spotter I don't know.

As a rule, get your spotters where they can see the target and as much area around the target as possible. And yes, off map artillery in heavy bocage maps is not massively useful. And aggravated by the current tendency of scenarios to be 1 hour long with the artillery arriving 5 minutes in so you can't use it for a pre-planned barrage.

[c3k]

As stated above, if your spotter cannot see where the spotting rounds land, well, the barrage won't be very accurate.

As well, the higher the experience level of the spotter, the more accurate the barrage will be.

Finally, I believe that there is a known bug regarding PRE-plotted (opening turn) barrages which is being worked on. There may be some work regarding spotting round behavior, as well.

[vetacon]

Design, I believe. Spotting rounds are very inaccurate (unless you get lucky). But, the spotter has to be able to see where they land in order to send corrections to the firing unit. Otherwise the next round will fall somewhere similar to the first one. If none of them are spotted, then fire for effect is eventually called where the last spotting round fell.

In bocage scenarios this is a big problem, since thakns to the hedges almost everywhere is out of line of sight of the spotter; a spotter in one hedgerow trying to call in a mission on another hedgerow isn't going to have a high success rate unless one of the spotting rounds happens to fall in the field between them, which isn't guaranteed.

Whether there are additional possibilities for mis-aimed missions to simulate mistakes by the spotter I don't know.

As a rule, get your spotters where they can see the target and as much area around the target as possible. And yes, off map artillery in heavy bocage maps is not massively useful. And aggravated by the current tendency of scenarios to be 1 hour long with the artillery arriving 5 minutes in so you can't use it for a pre-planned barrage.

I know nothing of military procedure, but the principle of the spotter calling fire for effect when he knows none of the spotting rounds have landed on target seems deeply flawed. Does this really happen IRL?

Can't help thinking if I were calling for artillery on a target, the last thing I'd be doing is saying "yeah go for it" when I knew that no spotting rounds had yet found the target.

[Polo]

You really should take care before writing such topic title as "ridiculously inaccurate" without knowing to play the game, even with a question mark...

BTW, is there a way to know the spotting round was unobserved? (as it was the case in CMx1, we could always say if it is OK or not)

I guess the spotter knows he hasn't seen the round falling, right?

Polo

[Mattias]

You really should take care before writing such topic title as "ridiculously inaccurate" without knowing to play the game, even with a question mark...

Oh, that seems to be the order of the day, these days (cough cough).

Anyhow: I set up a platoon HQ, company HQ and FO (all regular/normal at Elite difficulty) firing off board 60mm, 81mm and 107 mm mortars (all regular).

Perfect conditions, perfect visibility.

And fired and fired and fired (that would be some 20 missions per unit).

Result: Not once was the fire for effect off target.

That is in fact better than I would have thought possible in WW2.

M.

[vetacon]

Oh, that seems to be the order of the day, these days (cough cough).

Anyhow: I set up a platoon HQ, company HQ and FO (all regular/normal at Elite difficulty) firing off board 60mm, 81mm and 107 mm mortars (all regular).

Perfect conditions, perfect visibility.

And fired and fired and fired (that would be some 20 missions per unit).

Result: Not once was the fire for effect off target.

That is in fact better than I would have thought possible in WW2.

M.

Not quite sure why this is relevant. Are you saying the behaviour that people are reporting is made up?

[afreu]

You really should take care before writing such topic title as "ridiculously inaccurate" without knowing to play the game, even with a question mark...

I've been playing CM:SF for over four years now and have been designing a few scenarios myself. So I would say that I know how to play the game. And although I like the CM series for its historical accuracy, it is still supposed to be a game and make fun.

[Mattias]

Not quite sure why this is relevant. Are you saying the behaviour that people are reporting is made up?

I clearly must take greater care when posting these days...

What i meant to say was that in this test, that was so extremely limited in time and space that it probably should be considered irrelevant, all 60 fire missions landed on target. In no way does this invalidate the observations of all previous and following posters.

I would, however hazard to voice the opinion that in this particular test, insignificant as it may be, the off-board mortars were almost ridiculously accurate.

Cheers,

M.

[chris talpas]

I've had a couple of times where the fire for effect order is given and the rounds are landing several hundred meters off target. I've even tried doing a mission adjustment and that didn't help. In the third battle of Task Force Raff, where this had occurred, I cancelled the mission, chose an area about a hundred meters to the right (it was an area fire mission) and the spotting and fire mission went fine.

I haven't played a huge number of games but would saying where I have had a problem represents at most 10% of missions.

It may be as some have suggested visibility issues for the spotter team.

Chris

[vetacon]

I clearly must take greater care when posting these days...

What i meant to say was that in this test, that was so extremely limited in time and space that it probably should be considered irrelevant, all 60 fire missions landed on target. In no way does this invalidate the observations of all previous and following posters.

I would, however hazard to voice the opinion that in this particular test, insignificant as it may be, the off-board mortars were almost ridiculously accurate.

Cheers,

M.

The OP used the term ridiculous, not me - I don't agree with it. The point I was making is that when someone is reporting behaviour within the game that is unusual, it doesn't really matter that other people haven't seen it. The people who are reporting it still have a valid issue.

I've had a couple of times where the fire for effect order is given and the rounds are landing several hundred meters off target. I've even tried doing a mission adjustment and that didn't help. In the third battle of Task Force Raff, where this had occurred, I cancelled the mission, chose an area about a hundred meters to the right (it was an area fire mission) and the spotting and fire mission went fine.

I haven't played a huge number of games but would saying where I have had a problem represents at most 10% of missions.

It may be as some have suggested visibility issues for the spotter team.

Chris

I have also seen accurate fire mission much more than I've seen inaccurate ones, but i'd still like to understand why a spotter would call for fire-for-effect when he hasn't seen any spotting rounds land on target; after all why bother with spotting rounds if the mission just goes ahead whether they're hitting the target or not. If it's to reflect the occasional incompetence of spotter or whoever's commanding the battery then that's fine. It would just be good to hear from someone "in the know" if that actually is what's happening.

[Michael Emrys]

...i'd still like to understand why a spotter would call for fire-for-effect when he hasn't seen any spotting rounds land on target; after all why bother with spotting rounds if the mission just goes ahead whether they're hitting the target or not.

You're right.

Michael

[womble]

...i'd still like to understand why a spotter would call for fire-for-effect when he hasn't seen any spotting rounds land on target; after all why bother with spotting rounds if the mission just goes ahead whether they're hitting the target or not. If it's to reflect the occasional incompetence of spotter or whoever's commanding the battery then that's fine. It would just be good to hear from someone "in the know" if that actually is what's happening.

Darntootin'.

I can understand that the spotter won't run through the battery's entire allotment of ordnance just to get a mission on target (that won't fire, cos the battery's allotment of ordnance has been expended on spotting rounds, so there would have to be a limit of how many failed spotting rounds a spotter would bother with, but surely the default has to be "No target. Abort mission. Check fire! Check fire! Check fire!" not "Sod it, let 'er rip!" once that limit is reached.

As to the accuracy of 'fire for effect', I'm prepared to believe that the science of ballistics was sufficiently advanced that, barring exceptional circumstances, once the battery has the reference tube lined up, the mission can be fired on all tubes with scatter determined only by tiny variations in conditions from shot-to-shot and so should land, by and large, within the target zone.

The issue here is with the spotter's failure to be able to correct and bizzarre-seeming reaction to that situation.

[Mattias]

The point I was making is that when someone is reporting behaviour within the game that is unusual, it doesn't really matter that other people haven't seen it. The people who are reporting it still have a valid issue.

[Guest]

Guys, if your spotter can do his job, you'll get good FFE. If he's suppressed, or nervous, or just a little green around the ears, he'll do a worse job. If he can't see the spotting rounds fall, he'll have a hard time making a good FFE call.

Also, as noted, this is World War 2. Even the best FO in the world can make mistakes, doubly so when he's doing the math in his head and range estimations without a GPS, and the guys on the other end of the line are doing the math with pencil and paper. Keep your FO someplace he can see his targets, keep him out of trouble, and you'll get better results, but there's always a chance that some rounds from a mission are going to be off target.

Emergency missions exacerbate this, if you're using them. Don't expect anything like accuracy from those.

[Baneman]

...

BTW, is there a way to know the spotting round was unobserved? (as it was the case in CMx1, we could always say if it is OK or not)

This is the big question - how do we the player know if the spotting round has been observed or not ?

[gunnergoz]

This has happened to me a few times, but mostly I've seen very good off-map mortar fire results. It does sound like an issue with the spotting round. That is consistent with my experience - the wild barrages often had the spotting round land way off target too, and fire for effect was still called for by the FO.

[SteveP]

I did some testing of this because I was getting very mixed results, especially compared to CM1. My conclusion:

The experience level of the spotter is very important. The lower the experience, the larger the area around the target he needs to have in LOS, in order for the barrage to be accurate. A veterans doesn't need much, a regular needs significantly more. AFAICT, the guys doesn't need to actually see the spotting rounds fall -- he just needs to have a certain viewing area around the target in LOS.

I have concluded that with a spotter having lower experience, it's best to use a slow barrage, so you can cancel it without using up too much ammo. It is useless to try adjusting fire. If it didn't work the first time, it won't work the second time.

I would also agree that the spotter should automatically cancel fire if he doesn't see any of the shells landing on the target.

[akd]

Yes. "Adjust mission" is not for making corrections.

[SteveP]

I have noticed that the AI has basically the same problem getting accurate indirect fire. I think it tends to be inaccurate about half the time. However, I think the AI may use the adjust fire option as a trial-and-error method. That is, if the barrage is falling in the wrong place, the AI will adjust to an entirely new target. And if that goes bad as well, to yet a third target, if there is one in sight. So, if I am right, the AI is reacting to inaccurate fire when it is running things.

I haven't thought about using adjust fire in that way, but it makes some senses if ammo levels are reasonable.

[renaldo1]

Only played the demo so far – ordered the game yesterday so it will be a while before I can play the full game.

I’ve also seen some wayward artillery when firing indirect. Much more often than accurate artillery. All conditions have been very good except one – I am almost always firing to areas where I have limited LOS to the whole target area (typically LOS to only 10% or so of it). So it would seem for me that that is the explanation and that even with all other conditions perfect it makes a big difference.

And I fully understand that if I can’t see spotting rounds landing then I have not much chance to adjust the full mission on target.

But, surely even though I only have LOS to the ground of about 10% of my target area I would expect to have LOS to considerably more of the area if there was dust/dirt etc. thrown up from rounds that hit? So I would have a better chance to spot whether the mission is coming in on target and adjust? No tell-tale dust rising up in the area means no spotting rounds on target. Likewise I may not have LOS to the ground of where a wayward spotting round lands but may see roughly where it was from the dust thrown up?

I have one more problematic issue with artillery. I’m setting duration to Short, expecting then only 6-12 rounds (as per manual) and getting 18+ rounds (not including spotting rounds). Any ideas what I might be doing wrong? I’ve set mission to Medium but I can still do that to get the frequency of fire I want and then still expect to only use 6-12 rounds by setting duration to Short can’t I? Or did I mis-understand that.

By the way, the game is exceeding all my expectations so far – and those expectations weren’t low to begin with. Have to say, I’m very impressed to date.

[theFightingSeabee]

You guys need to consider that it's WW2 era artillery. They had crappy radios and were doing all calculations with a pencil and paper, looking at a map that may/may not be correct, estimating distances, etc. All of this, sometimes, under fire or at least with a battle raging near them. There are so many opportunities for someone to screw up, whether it's the FO, the radio guy on the other end, the artillery plotters, or the gun/mortar crews themselves. Remember there were no GPS's, no computers, no satellite comms.

Sometimes I think that CMBN artillery is too accurate considering all the above.

[SteveP]

You guys need to consider that it's WW2 era artillery.

For my part, it wasn't a complaint. Just a matter of understanding, especially if your previous experience was CM1. I agree, the current design is more realistic. But it did take some research to figure it out. Some people will take longer to adjust, I suspect.