Off-map mortars ridiculously inaccurate?

[JasonC]

An FO would often combine what he expected to be the last correction with the FFE call. "Drop 100 and fire for effect" e.g. Because he is in a hurry to get the mission in, think the guns are close, wants to reduce warning to the target etc.

And 70-100m only looks "wildly off" from the tiny perspective of very small battlefields and very danger-close missions. In the real deal, they considered anything shot within about 400 meters of friendlies to be danger close. And didn't bother with corrects under 50 meter increments because the shell to shell dispersion was about that big anyway. The spotting rounds have this variation too, and the centerpoint of aim for the whole battery could easily be 40 or 50 meters off from where the last spotting round landed.

WW II artillery was a bludgeon, not a scalpel...

[SteveP]

An FO would often combine what he expected to be the last correction with the FFE call. "Drop 100 and fire for effect" e.g. Because he is in a hurry to get the mission in, think the guns are close, wants to reduce warning to the target etc.

And 70-100m only looks "wildly off" from the tiny perspective of very small battlefields and very danger-close missions. In the real deal, they considered anything shot within about 400 meters of friendlies to be danger close. And didn't bother with corrects under 50 meter increments because the shell to shell dispersion was about that big anyway. The spotting rounds have this variation too, and the centerpoint of aim for the whole battery could easily be 40 or 50 meters off from where the last spotting round landed.

WW II artillery was a bludgeon, not a scalpel...

So perhaps the morale effect of barrages that are roughly in the vicinity is not really simmed well in the game? Because you are right that, given those parameters the "inaccurate" barrages aren't so far off the mark.

Another consideration is that the game seems to treat all indirect fire the same: i.e., a small caliber mortar can be as far off as a large caliber gun. Yet the former needs to be more on target to be effective.

In any event, I do think that paying some attention to the quality of the spotter really makes enough difference, so that there is no good reason to miss the target. And the AI seems to have a reasonably OK way of doing something useful with the available ammo.

[StrykerPSG]

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.

Aaargh! Search the forums peoples..........kidding, sorta. I think BFC has done a pretty good job of incorporating the multitudes of factors that would affect indirect fire, including experience level of the FO's, weather, LOS and overall reaction of the crews to various events, such as setting up in a tree line. They have even made calling for missions if out of radio contact impossible until comms are established.

Professionally, not sure of anyone else that ever incorporated so many real world issues successfully as BFC has done. It is because of their attentions to detail that I have bought everything they've made for CMSF and after. Anyway, there are at least four other threads about the trials and tribulations of indrect fire. I would heartily recommend finding them and see the other observations your comrades have found in this latest iteration. I would be willing to bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone giving this level of detail to such a simple weapon system.

Matt

[JasonC]

SteveP - There is a reason most real artillery shoots were by div arty, not light battalion mortars, and were often delivered by entire battalions, not single batteries. They made up for the aim point being off a bit by tossing in lots of shells at a wide area, 400 meters on a side, as often as anything smaller than that. That meant a good target was a defending company or battalion on a whole village or several adjoining fields, not a single MG nest or building.

Now, battalion mortars would sometimes be called on such smaller point targets. And their typical error could be less, since they were typically firing from 1 km away, not the 10 km of a typical div arty shoot. I've seen accurate fire from medium mortars plastering a target in the game - but it shouldn't be an automatic thing that you get that outcome. With a TRP maybe - defenders would register the concentrations they needed, and could expect those to hit the right individual field - though not an individual building.

As for the morale and suppression from nearby artillery fire that isn't dead on, when the big stuff is falling, men within 100 meters would hit the deck and stay motionless, and men within more like 200 meters would go prone when it started, and might or might not get up the gumption to crawl a bit while it was going on. But charging around at "quick" to secure a flank, 150 meters away from a boiling 105 barrage? Not usually.

Sometimes they'd try to follow a prearranged "walking" barrage that close, but a more normal thing would be to stay 200 yards away from it, at least, and then let it shift in 400 yard "lifts". The infantry would move on the position the barrage lifted from only after such a lift, not during it. They'd expect the men directly under it to either have cleared out, or to be stunned for the time it would take to close the distance, and more likely to surrender than fight back if they followed up the barrage in a timely way.

This is all for called or reactive fire. Prep fires would just blast stuff 400 meters or more beyond the start line for 5 to 15 minutes, and go completely silent before the attack jumped off.

[De Savage]

We players do some stuff they never would have tried in WW2. I tend to call for short barrages only and usually point target very near (often less than 100m). I usually find artillery very accurate, rarely got friendly fire or off target barrages. But like other in some bocage mission I find that called artillery misfires badly. I recall wondering where the heck did they fire, coz' I couldn't even spot where shells landed.

I can live with less accurate artillery. For my habit of calling barrages very near it would be great if misfire happens more often. This is war and miscalculations and errors are common. But not sure if others find friendly fire by own artillery fun. Anyway if artillery is not that accurate, then I would call them and keep bigger distance to target. Maybe artillery is too accurate, so players call them without worrying safe distances.

[SteveP]

SteveP - There is a reason most real artillery shoots were by div arty, not light battalion mortars, and were often delivered by entire battalions, not single batteries. They made up for the aim point being off a bit by tossing in lots of shells at a wide area, 400 meters on a side, as often as anything smaller than that. That meant a good target was a defending company or battalion on a whole village or several adjoining fields, not a single MG nest or building.

I remember you writing about this type of thing before (usually with CMBB, I think ). Obviously, we aren't going to get away from the single battery shoots in CM. Possibly scenario/QB creators should be creating larger areawide Support Targets for preplanned barrages. At least, then, the AI would be doing something that is a bit more realistic.

OTOH, my testing here was the result of problems directing small on-board indirect fire. And I think the problems here are mostly user error/inexperience. I think there is a possible role for the TacAI to do something if your barrage is clearly going way off target. But there may be reasons why that has to be left to the user to deal with.

[JasonC]

As a player commander (rather than AI) you can always cancel an off target fire mission and try again. You will get a "check fire" and new delay etc. As for using realistic barrage sizes, scenario designers can include multiple batteries if they like obviously, and players can call for an area target with a larger circle for each, instead of a point target.

I have done a few fire missions in the game, but not a lot with the bigger stuff. I'll have to spend more time trying things and report how it seems from a realism perspective. So far, I haven't seen any large problems. I do notice that limited LOS on the small bocage strewn maps tends to make observed shoots very close by affairs. But that's realistic, and it is a reason to use map fire on turn 1 with the bigger stuff (because you can get it to hit accurately, and not right on top of your own guys).

[StellarRat]

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.

Phil I appreciate that a nervous, green, etc...FO or even poor quality artillerymen might drop a few rounds off target when the FFE begins. However, I can't imagine any sane FO would call FFE if he hadn't seen his spotting rounds land somewhere close to the target or worse hadn't seen the last spotting round land or even worse hadn't seen any spotting rounds land. Second, if the FFE is way off target wouldn't he call in a correction or cancel the mission before all those precious rounds were expended on nothing or worse yet were hitting his own men? Like the previous poster said, "What's the point in using spotting rounds if they are ignored?" In other gaming systems I've seen the spotting rounds fall until the either the player or the FO is satisfied that the FFE will be accurate. So, you trade time for accuracy.

[Blackcat]

I should have thought that if the spotting rounds were not landing in the target area the observer would not call FFE until they were. The weakness in the game seems to be that after n spotting rounds FFE is called regardless of where those rounds land.

I would also question the apparent underlying assumption that map predictive fire in 1944 was so bad that an artillery unit that knew where it was could not put down a round within a few metres of where it was required. Getting rounds accurately on target without spotting rounds was an essential feature of the creeping barrage and that had been pretty much perfected by the autumn of 1916.

The effectiveness of artillery has been scaled back in the interests of game[lay, which is fair enough but soemtimes I think BF have gone too far.

[StellarRat]

I would also question the apparent underlying assumption that map predictive fire in 1944 was so bad that an artillery unit that knew where it was could not put down a round within a few metres of where it was required. Getting rounds accurately on target without spotting rounds was an essential feature of the creeping barrage and that had been pretty much perfected by the autumn of 1916.

I disagree a little with this. In our situation the FO has to know where HE is and where the target is in relation to him. I think that is where the problems start. In WW I the lines were static for such long periods that getting everything dialed in ahead of time was fairly easy. Plus the batteries didn't move much. I've ready plenty of stories about units moving out of arty range because the batteries simply could not be moved easily.

[CBR]

I would also question the apparent underlying assumption that map predictive fire in 1944 was so bad that an artillery unit that knew where it was could not put down a round within a few metres of where it was required. Getting rounds accurately on target without spotting rounds was an essential feature of the creeping barrage and that had been pretty much perfected by the autumn of 1916.

If one goes by the conclusions in Montgomery's Scientists then only about 5.1% of the rounds hit within a 100x100 yard area of a target position.

The main reason seems to have been meteorological effects. IIRC it is mentioned somewhere (one of Terry Copp's books?) that they did try to improve it after Normandy(using balloons and radar) but the effect might not have been that great.

Edit: for mortars it would IMO not be as bad though.

[StellarRat]

If one goes by the conclusions in Montgomery's Scientists then only about 5.1% of the rounds hit within a 100x100 yard area of a target position.

The main reason seems to have been meteorological effects. IIRC it is mentioned somewhere (one of Terry Copp's books?) that they did try to improve it after Normandy(using balloons and radar) but the effect might not have been that great.

Edit: for mortars it would IMO not be as bad though.

Were they scattered all over place? Or did barrage land in a group just in the wrong spot? Currently, the FFE is pretty tight, but can be wildly off target.

[Bastables]

Were they scattered all over place? Or did barrage land in a group just in the wrong spot? Currently, the FFE is pretty tight, but can be wildly off target.

It's also against the RA Corps experience where 75 yards was allowed and calculated for 25pdr guns as standard for met caused dispersion. At Regt level so 2 x 8 guns.

Is Monty's scientists talking about quick fire fire plans (Like CM style foo officer with a radio and support team watching fall of shot) or the more formal program shoots ( Predictive, ranged, and or registered).

[Bastables]

SteveP - There is a reason most real artillery shoots were by div arty, not light battalion mortars, and were often delivered by entire battalions, not single batteries. They made up for the aim point being off a bit by tossing in lots of shells at a wide area, 400 meters on a side, as often as anything smaller than that. That meant a good target was a defending company or battalion on a whole village or several adjoining fields, not a single MG nest or building.

This is incorrect as RA after introducing quick fire plans (in 41/42?) and on call, shot at regt and Battery level in support of infantry battalions and individual infantry companies. Of course a RA battery was 8 25 pdrs, but I don't see how US and German arty practice would differ greatly with their battries, that would contain 4 guns.

44' western Europe had a mixture of batty level fire missions and full on AGRA missions (including multiple regts, AA guns, mortars plunging MG fire ect) that were used for major attacks like Goodwood.

[JasonC]

OK, I just played a QB in which I attacked a farm the American Way - with a single rifle platoon backed by a 155mm battery with a professional FO. The balance of my tiny force was 2 added BAR teams and a veteran sniper. The FO team kept the jeep, the rest all on foot. The defenders had 2 grenadier platoons, the company MG section, plus an additional HMG-42 (making 3 all told). So the infantry odds were 1:2 if not worse.

Because of the lay of the ground I could not do exactly what I wanted, which was to plaster the objective before walking in. The farm was on a reverse slope of sorts, so I had to advance across one set of fields to a low stone wall with LOS to the objective. Along that wall, my inferior infantry force got into a firefight with the 3 HMGs and naturally had the worst of it. But in the meantime I called for the big boys to help.

The missions took 5 minutes with the dedicated FO and 8 minutes when I used the platoon HQ - which I did at one point for one mission because the FO team was all cowering. The FO team did not take actual casualties (the HQ team did, losing its radio operator around the end of its mission), but did spend a fair amount of time eating dirt behind the wall for cover (or cower). I always used Heavy for the ROF, because 155s are slow enough as it is. I called the first mission for Short duration, expecting a few fat shells to be sufficient - in the event this was a mistake.

The first mission was area target with a 100m circle. It showered shells in that area, completely accurate despite the FO occasionally cowering. It obscured the target with dust, but when it cleared the MGs were still firing. 2 of them had been a bit to my right of the beaten zone, but even one within it managed to recover from cower in a minute or two (too fast IMO).

So my next mission I called as a point target directly on a pair of HMGs along a hedgerow. This fire was extremely accurate, with an extremely tight sheaf. Although I called it as "long" duration, I checked fire after it was clear they'd had enough. 1 flight went out before they acknowledged checked fire and more shells (4 and 2) landed after that. (Moral, if you want to be able to rapidly check fire, pick Medium rather than Heavy for the ROF).

I thought nothing could live through that, and indeed the position was silenced, and nearly everyone there killed or wounded. Late I discovered that a single rifleman survivor was left, and he briefly rallied to get off a couple of shots at men that had bypassed him. But a little attention and he gave up the ghost.

A third mission went back to area fire with a 75m circle and it smashed the rest of the position, pretty much. After the dust cleared I advanced men, and found 2 holdout locations - one a spot where some survivors of the early missions had evidently run back to the next hedgerow to their rear, clustering around a gap in that hedgerow. And the last, several hold out units including 2 HQ, behind a low wall at the back of the farm. They were however pretty demoralized, and once I had shooters up opposite they melted without much struggle.

I got the total victory screen with 8 minutes remaining, with an additional mission called on the hedgerow gap location about 3 minutes out.

Overall, counting up kills, my infantry hit 16 defenders while the single 155mm battery accounting for 59. Moral, don't try to stand under 155mm artillery fire. I lost more men than I'd like, mostly because I had to close to a poor firefight location to get LOS, and had to hang out their too long cowering behind the wall waiting for missions to arrive.

The artillery, on the other hand, did not disappoint. Point target is overkill close with heavy stuff, crazily accurate. Area targets work but even with the big stuff it will take more than a few rounds to get the job done. Heavy or medium is fine for ROF but don't try to finesse it with short for the duration - instead plan it for longer, and check fire when you've seen enough hits in the right locations to deal with the target. Oh, and all of this I called from around 200 yards away - which let me tell you, in the real deal is way inside "danger close" for 155s.

Overall I'd say CMx2ers are getting godlike artillery, not nerfed at all. The only minor downside is that it isn't terribly quick for the bigger stuff, and infantry firefights happen at a faster pace than the artillery war. The right way to handle that is to deliberately dial down the level of contact while waiting for a barrage, and be patient.

One man's (limited) experiences so far...

[JasonC]

Bastables - want me to give you chapter and verse on all the times the US official histories for Normandy report heavy artillery fire support, running into thousands of rounds in a day, by multiple battalions? It wasn't just used retail...

[CBR]

If I understand it correctly then the wind and temperature meant that the mean point of impact simply shifted. The maximum was 700 yards but the average value was 200-250 yards.That was a survey of Operation Veritable.

The books also mentions a survey of Operation Switchback where it was down to 4.8% but apparently meteorological effects mean not so much compared to calibration.

It also has some figures showing impacts compared to the target, and you get both types really: either the target is in the periphery of the impact zone and then a couple where impacts seems pretty wildly scattered.

[Battlefront.com]

We have made some tweaks for v1.01. Problems could arise when the Spotter called FFE even without having seen the spotting rounds. This should take care of the problem of accurate fire in completely wrong spot.

Steve

[Bastables]

Bastables - want me to give you chapter and verse on all the times the US official histories for Normandy report heavy artillery fire support, running into thousands of rounds in a day, by multiple battalions? It wasn't just used retail...

But it was also used retail. . .

[StellarRat]

We have made some tweaks for v1.01. Problems could arise when the Spotter called FFE even without having seen the spotting rounds. This should take care of the problem of accurate fire in completely wrong spot.

Steve

Awesome Steve! I had a feeling there was a bug in there somewhere. Once again BF takes care of business.

[CBR]

Is Monty's scientists talking about quick fire fire plans (Like CM style foo officer with a radio and support team watching fall of shot) or the more formal program shoots ( Predictive, ranged, and or registered).

It only mentions predicted firing. There are no examples of battery(troop) accuracy with observed fire. I guess it should be fairly accurate and within less than 50 meters?

[Bastables]

It only mentions predicted firing. There are no examples of battery(troop) accuracy with observed fire. I guess it should be fairly accurate and within less than 50 meters?

Sounds about right Studies conducted by: Field Artillery Working Group of the Standing Committee on the Accuracy of Artillery Fire (FAWG of SCARF) So Canada and Britain after the war show a 25pdrs having a mean point impact of 30 yds at 8000 yards. Anything outside of that was an "error" due to poor drills, poor laying, poor ammunition, poor ammunition storage, unrecognised factors ect. At 8000 yds the 25pdr was expected to have 20% of shells impact outside of the the 30yd mean point of aim/impact at max range so 13000yds errors rose to 30%. This is before incorrect fire orders or an unusually incompatant FOO officer/warrant officer deciding to just "go with it" after failing to spot any spotting/registering rounds.

So less than 50 metres sounds as the Americans say within the ball park.

[Bastables]

We have made some tweaks for v1.01. Problems could arise when the Spotter called FFE even without having seen the spotting rounds. This should take care of the problem of accurate fire in completely wrong spot.

Steve

Good show

So. . . when's that patch out. . .

[StellarRat]

Good show

So. . . when's that patch out. . .

Yes, when is the patch out? I mean, SH%^ we've had the game for grand total of 1.7 weeks! You guys are slacking again! :-)

Actually, you've really out done yourselves this time. The game is awesome and this is by far the smoothest most trouble free new you release you've ever put out. I hope you go enjoy some sun and drinks for a couple weeks. Then, I want my flamethrowers and AA guns!

[afreu]

We have made some tweaks for v1.01. Problems could arise when the Spotter called FFE even without having seen the spotting rounds. This should take care of the problem of accurate fire in completely wrong spot.

Steve

Seems like that could help.

During further playing I payed attention to the line of sight between the spotter and the spotting rounds. Now I abort mortar/artillery missions if the three spotting rounds land outside of the spotter's view and to try out a slightly different target point.

It's just one of those things, which frustrate me initially. But as long as there is a workaround, it's possible to adapt my way of playing the game and to overcome these little nuisances.