Targeting when assigning indirect fire, very annoying "feature"

[Fredrock1957]

Say you have 3 mortars and 2 spotters... both spotters can see AT Gun 1... click on motar 1, click on AT-Gun 1 for area fire... bla bla fire mission....

Now you see another AT-Gun on the next turn... Spotter 2 can see it but Spotter 1 can't... opps but when you plotted above fire mortar 1 used spotter 2... your f#%@#ked....

The way it works now... makes sense to me.... Spotter has to call for Arty, with all it's definitions otherwise.... opps

Just my opinion...

[akd]

I am pretty sure I did now use that mode any of my test games. BUT I used the lowest normal difficulty level yes if that has something to do with anything.

Ah, I haven't played on basic training in a long time. Greyed-out icon means the selected unit cannot see the target, and a unit cannot target something it cannot see.

[user38]

In order to "shoot indirectly," the CMBN indirect fire interface requires that you select a valid spotter, first. That spotter must have LOS to the "position where" the enemy unit is and have a communication line to the indirect shooter.

I think that Cirrus is suggesting that these steps would be better handled by the engine in the background. So, rather than first selecting the spotter, the player would just select the indirect fire weapon. Enemy icons that are visible to some valid spotter (in command) would remain on the map, either in bright color (direct fire, visible to the unit) or dark (indirect fire, visible to a valid spotter). Enemy units that were not visible directly by the unit or indirectly by a valid spotter would not be visible on the map.

As I understand it the suggestion is for a kind of borg light method of spotting. If one or several spotter (in communication with the artillery) can see a target it can be fired upon. But if this method were implemented it would, to a certain extent, abstract the target spotting. As I understand it the quality of the spotter (their training, line of sight, level of suppression, etc) are factored in to the accuracy of the targeting. As is whether or not the spotter is still alive when the rounds start falling. This method might be fine for RT players who are looking for Command and Conquer in a WW2 setting, but it seems lie a step backwards to me.

[Battlefront.com]

About the behavior of ui: If I remember correctly when I selected the mortar unit the AT-gun was still visible (but dark grey). BUT if i move mouse towards it, the indicator icon vanishes.

An Icon only disappears if it literally disappears from the sight of the selected unit. Nearly always you'll get a "?" icon in its place where you last saw the enemy unit. In the case of an immobile AT Gun, that "?" would be in the same spot as the ATG icon. Therefore, unless there's some sort of extremely unique bug, that hasn't gone detected in 5 years so far, what you think you saw isn't what you saw.

(We call shooting mortars with arc always indirect fire in our language, but in game terms this is area fire?)

Correct. In game terms whenever you are shooting at a unit it is a "Target", if you are shooting at the terrain it's "Area Fire". Mortars firing via a spotter are firing "Indirect Fire", mortars firing using their own eyes is "Direct Lay".

I can not understand why I can't do this faster when I am really zoomed out by clicking the unit icon. End result would be same as in the above. I shoot (area fire?) to the ground spot under at unit.

Yes, the action is the same. As I said earlier, it's a "cheat". That Mortar Team has NO IDEA that there is an AT Gun there. You do as the player, therefore you as the player are "cheating" by having the Mortar Team using "Direct Lay" to hit something it has no understanding existing at all, not to mention at that specific point. Doing anything to make this easier is the wrong direction for the game.

Now, firing a mortar using "Indirect Fire" (spotted) is as easy as you want it to be. Here are the steps:

1. Deselect all units. The AT Gun will be shown because with all units deselected all cumulative knowledge of enemy positions are shown to you.

2. Select the AT Gun. All of your units that know of the AT Gun's existence will light up.

3. Select a suitable Spotter. This might take some getting used to to know what a suitable Spotter is, but that's fairly straight forward game mechanics.

4. If the Spotter is in comms with artillery, then you click on the Artillery Support button. Whatever it has access to shows up in the UI.

5. Select the Mortar you want to fire at the target, go through the call procedures, and there you go.

If you can't find a suitable Spotter, then you're screwed The only option left to you is "cheating" by having your completely unaware Mortar conduct a Direct Lay Area Fire mission on the spot. And we have no interest in making that any easier than it already is.

Hopefully this all makes sense and the terms can be kept straight as they are important.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

As I understand it the suggestion is for a kind of borg light method of spotting. If one or several spotter (in communication with the artillery) can see a target it can be fired upon. But if this method were implemented it would, to a certain extent, abstract the target spotting. As I understand it the quality of the spotter (their training, line of sight, level of suppression, etc) are factored in to the accuracy of the targeting. As is whether or not the spotter is still alive when the rounds start falling. This method might be fine for RT players who are looking for Command and Conquer in a WW2 setting, but it seems lie a step backwards to me.

Correct, which is why I not only don't see a reason to change anything, but instead see strong reasons to not change anything.

It's clear and simple with the way it works now. If you select a unit you see what it sees. If you can't see something then you aren't supposed to be shooting at it. People do anyway, using Area Fire (heck, I "cheat" like this too ), but there's absolutely no reason for us to make it easier.

Steve

[SteveP]

Correct, which is why I not only don't see a reason to change anything, but instead see strong reasons to not change anything.

It's clear and simple with the way it works now. If you select a unit you see what it sees. If you can't see something then you aren't supposed to be shooting at it. People do anyway, using Area Fire (heck, I "cheat" like this too ), but there's absolutely no reason for us to make it easier.

Steve

FWIW, I totally agree with the sentiments here. So it seems like a good time to call attention to a flaw (IMHO) in the tutorial (Raff campaign) in the first scenario, where the player is instructed to clear the bocage region. In the text, the player is told to use the Shermans to area fire at locations where the tanks themselves don't see any targets. You could possibly rationalize this, but for my money I think this sends the wrong message to the troops. Just been waiting for a chance to point this out ...

[Sitting Duck]

As I understand it the suggestion is for a kind of borg light method of spotting. If one or several spotter (in communication with the artillery) can see a target it can be fired upon. But if this method were implemented it would, to a certain extent, abstract the target spotting. As I understand it the quality of the spotter (their training, line of sight, level of suppression, etc) are factored in to the accuracy of the targeting. As is whether or not the spotter is still alive when the rounds start falling. This method might be fine for RT players who are looking for Command and Conquer in a WW2 setting, but it seems lie a step backwards to me.

For my own part, I'm not suggesting anything other than a change to the UI that makes it easier to use indirect fire. I am not advocating a return to borg spotting in any way.

I think the key is that some users "think" about targeting by selecting the firing resource, first. The easiest example of this is for direct fire. Select the firing resource, issue the target command, then select the target.

In the case of indirect fire, the process is complicated by the fact that the spotter is not the firing resource. The current UI solves this by requiring the player to select the spotting unit first, select the firing resource using the indirect fire dialog, then issue mission commands.

A suggested alternative would allow the user to start with the selection of the indirect firing resource, then the target. If there is only one valid spotter, then the user can simply issue the remaining indirect fire commands.

If there is more than one valid spotter, then the player would need to select that spotter. This is required because the spotter is essential to targeting resolution.

No borg spotting.

Since off-map indirect fire resources do not have on-map icons, they would have to be selected differently. I guess it could be done using the indirect fire dialog - but without selecting a spotter first.

I was trying to add some light to my understanding of Cirrus' post. I am interested in improving the indirect fire interface - I am definitely not interested in a return to borg spotting. :-)

[Stitch]

It's clear and simple with the way it works now. If you select a unit you see what it sees. If you can't see something then you aren't supposed to be shooting at it. People do anyway, using Area Fire (heck, I "cheat" like this too ), but there's absolutely no reason for us to make it easier.

Steve

I, for one, am glad that there will be no change to the current spotting method.

I will admit to, however, the utilization of ghost bombings in where a HVT is lit up by a another squad but the FO has not spotted (yet has a clear line of sight to) and still can bring down the 81mm rain of fun.

These missions are definitely not as accurate to target, but when you gotta suppress, you gotta suppress.

BTW, once spotted, an AT gun will stay visible on map, even though the marker (and crew details) can be absent.

[Battlefront.com]

FWIW, I totally agree with the sentiments here. So it seems like a good time to call attention to a flaw (IMHO) in the tutorial (Raff campaign) in the first scenario, where the player is instructed to clear the bocage region. In the text, the player is told to use the Shermans to area fire at locations where the tanks themselves don't see any targets. You could possibly rationalize this, but for my money I think this sends the wrong message to the troops. Just been waiting for a chance to point this out ...

Heh. Well, there's a thin line between realistic "Recon By Fire" tactics and "Gamey cheat'n bastage fire" In real life the Americans learned that when they broke through a hedgerow to immediately fire HE and MGs into the opposite corners because the Germans liked to setup their support weapons there. This, therefore, is a 100% legit tactics to use in the game. A mortar on the opposite side of the map firing at random patch of ground which just so happens to be the exact spot where an AT Gun is positioned... gamey. Anybody here who can't say they are a gamey bastard when it comes to this sort of thing can be called a "gamey lying bastard" because I don't believe for a second anybody hasn't done this at least once

I think the key is that some users "think" about targeting by selecting the firing resource, first. The easiest example of this is for direct fire. Select the firing resource, issue the target command, then select the target.

But this is the wrong way around. You shouldn't be saying to yourself "I have a mortar team doing nothing, let's see what it can shoot at". You should be saying "I have a problem over here and some mortar fire would be nice. Do I have a spotter here, or can I get one into action?"

Sure, I know some people do think "I have a mortar team doing nothing, let's see what it can shoot at", but that's just not how the game is designed to be played. Trying to change it to work that way probably isn't very practical and potentially confusing. Think about it...

You select a Mortar and everything all Spotters can see are shown. Well, now how do you figure out what your Mortar can fire at directly, without a Spotter? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference, which in effect reintroduces the Borg problem for this one instance. Worse, how can you tell which of those lit up targets can only be hit with indirect spotted fire vs. direct fire? Can't tell the difference either, which means you have to check LOS to all prospective targets.

It's a mess and it's unnecessary to go down this road.

A suggested alternative would allow the user to start with the selection of the indirect firing resource, then the target. If there is only one valid spotter, then the user can simply issue the remaining indirect fire commands.

If there is more than one valid spotter, then the player would need to select that spotter. This is required because the spotter is essential to targeting resolution.

Prone to user error and again... there are other problems with this.

Since off-map indirect fire resources do not have on-map icons, they would have to be selected differently. I guess it could be done using the indirect fire dialog - but without selecting a spotter first.

Even more complicated.

The UI as it is works fine. There's no problem with it EXCEPT if you approach the problem from the wrong side. You should not think of the indirect fire assets as anything other than supporting something else. Spotters are the conduit for that most of the time, so the emphasis and game focus is (as it should be) on the Spotters.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

If it can be done, I hope it would be done.

After I posted this I had to leave my computer for several hours to take care of other business. But while I was gone the thought came to me that the value of the existing system lies in the fact that it models, at least to some degree, the actual historical procedures, which the changes suggested would not do. For me, this comprises a strong argument for leaving the current system in place. It may feel a bit clunky, but it's supposed to.

Michael

[Migo441]

...it models, at least to some degree, the actual historical procedures

Yep. I kind of LIKE the broad strokes of the current clunky model. The one thing I do wish is that there was some sort of Back + Next way to step through the options. Inevitably, I'm not happy with the area radius I draw (for example) and I have to go back to the very beginning and start over.

[Michael Emrys]

Yep. I kind of LIKE the broad strokes of the current clunky model. The one thing I do wish is that there was some sort of Back + Next way to step through the options. Inevitably, I'm not happy with the area radius I draw (for example) and I have to go back to the very beginning and start over.

Yeah, as I recall there are several areas in the game where that is a burden. An Undo command that would cancel just the last input in the UI would make play a lot easier and faster.

Michael

[Steiner14]

@Steve

Since you agree that it is gamey that mortars can area-fire without LOS and without an observer, why isn't firing simply made impossible?

[Sitting Duck]

...You shouldn't be saying to yourself "I have a mortar team doing nothing, let's see what it can shoot at". You should be saying "I have a problem over here and some mortar fire would be nice. Do I have a spotter here, or can I get one into action?"

I think the first two steps in the second quote sentence are typical:

1. I have a problem over here (enemy unit)

2. Some mortar fire would be nice.

It's the "Do I have a spotter (in communication)...?" question/step that I think Cirrus wanted to be handled by the UI differently.

You select a Mortar and everything all Spotters can see are shown. Well, now how do you figure out what your Mortar can fire at directly, without a Spotter? You wouldn't be able to tell the difference, which in effect reintroduces the Borg problem for this one instance. Worse, how can you tell which of those lit up targets can only be hit with indirect spotted fire vs. direct fire? Can't tell the difference either, which means you have to check LOS to all prospective targets.

I'm not advocating this but how about icon shading? I haven't played a lot (yet), but I thought I saw some application behavior similar to this when I select an enemy unit. Friendly unit icons that have LOS to the selected enemy unit are bright, and friendly unit icons that do not have LOS to the selected enemy unit in a darker color. Maybe that application behavior differs with different FOW settings.

In any event it doesn't seem to be too difficult to use bright icon color to represent enemy units directly visible by the mortar and darker enemy icons to represent those available via indirect fire.

Is that borg spotting? Seems like you can accomplish exactly the same result with the existing interface albeit with more steps when there is more than one spotter with LOS to the enemy unit (i.e., select enemy unit first, select potential spotters in LOS (bright icon), click indirect fire dialog to see which indirect asset available, decide whether to try another spotter with LOS, issue targeting commands).

The UI as it is works fine. There's no problem with it EXCEPT if you approach the problem from the wrong side. You should not think of the indirect fire assets as anything other than supporting something else. Spotters are the conduit for that most of the time, so the emphasis and game focus is (as it should be) on the Spotters...

Ok, the indirect fire UI works fine.

[akd]

@Steve

Since you agree that it is gamey that mortars can area-fire without LOS and without an observer, why isn't firing simply made impossible?

They cannot area fire without LOS or spotter except in the very specific circumstance of defilade terrain a few action spots beyond LOS.

Do you mean why not disallow all area fire (rather than fire on an ID'd target in LOS)? Answer there is that there is no way around the player as God problem, and that would be a horrible attempt to do so.

[Ranger33]

Here's an idea I had that is kind of related to this discussion. What if mortars, when used in the direct fire role, were able to use the indirect artillery options, but only with themselves as an option. So they could do linear, area, or point targets, instead of just the current direct line. Obviously they would only be able to do this on what they can directly see, basically they would be their own spotter.

For example, say you have a mortar set up and it has direct line of sight to a hedgerow full of enemies. Wouldn't it make sense for the mortar team to be able to do a linear target mission along that entire line, instead of just firing at the one spot where you give them a target? In RT this isn't a problem since you can let them fire a few rounds and then shift the target line down a bit, but in wego you have to choose between putting ~60 seconds worth of rounds on one spot, or using a spotter, which means you are looking at 3-6 minutes at least before those rounds are landing. I'm sure you guys have considered this, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Another, probably simpler fix, would be making it where a spotter that has verbal contact with a mortar unit has a much shorter wait time for fire missions. Right now it seems there is no difference between radioing in a mission from the other end of the map and having the guy turn his head and say "Could I get some rounds on those trees over there?"

[Blackcat]

Here's an idea I had that is kind of related to this discussion. What if mortars, when used in the direct fire role, were able to use the indirect artillery options, but only with themselves as an option. So they could do linear, area, or point targets, instead of just the current direct line. Obviously they would only be able to do this on what they can directly see, basically they would be their own spotter.

For example, say you have a mortar set up and it has direct line of sight to a hedgerow full of enemies. Wouldn't it make sense for the mortar team to be able to do a linear target mission along that entire line, instead of just firing at the one spot where you give them a target? In RT this isn't a problem since you can let them fire a few rounds and then shift the target line down a bit, but in wego you have to choose between putting ~60 seconds worth of rounds on one spot, or using a spotter, which means you are looking at 3-6 minutes at least before those rounds are landing. I'm sure you guys have considered this, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Another, probably simpler fix, would be making it where a spotter that has verbal contact with a mortar unit has a much shorter wait time for fire missions. Right now it seems there is no difference between radioing in a mission from the other end of the map and having the guy turn his head and say "Could I get some rounds on those trees over there?"

I do like both your suggestions. Let us hope BF take them up.

[SteveP]

Heh. Well, there's a thin line between realistic "Recon By Fire" tactics and "Gamey cheat'n bastage fire" In real life the Americans learned that when they broke through a hedgerow to immediately fire HE and MGs into the opposite corners because the Germans liked to setup their support weapons there. This, therefore, is a 100% legit tactics to use in the game. A mortar on the opposite side of the map firing at random patch of ground which just so happens to be the exact spot where an AT Gun is positioned... gamey. Anybody here who can't say they are a gamey bastard when it comes to this sort of thing can be called a "gamey lying bastard" because I don't believe for a second anybody hasn't done this at least once

Appreciate the response. I think what the tutorial is recommending is gamey. The tanks are being told to area fire to a specific location, where they have seen no one, but where the infantry units have seen a contact or possible contact. If the tank had at least a contact, I would be OK with the area fire order. Or if the location was easily communicated (e.g., "shoot at the building in front of us") I would be OK with that as well. However, I think that communicating an area fire order to a location that can't possibly be described or pinpointed over the C2 net in any rapid way is gamey.

[moneymaxx]

@Steve

Since you agree that it is gamey that mortars can area-fire without LOS and without an observer, why isn't firing simply made impossible?

Because area fire without LOS is not always gamey.

A) A unit a 1000 meters away from the mortar spots an ATG. The mortar has not spotted the ATG, there is no way it has received the info from the spotting unit, has no LOS and LOF only to a spot that´s more or less close of the ATGs position. Area firing on that position = gamey.

You want to area fire a little bit beyond the LOS of the mortar because you think that's tactical sound = not gamey.

C) The mortar crew sees an enemy that then hides behind a wall/house... Area firing in the vicinity = not gamey.

How shall the game decide when to allow area fire and when not? It's better to let the player decide to restrict himself to cases and C) though I mostly can not .

[Cirrus]

If you can't find a suitable Spotter, then you're screwed The only option left to you is "cheating" by having your completely unaware Mortar conduct a Direct Lay Area Fire mission on the spot. And we have no interest in making that any easier than it already is.

Steve

This is quite strange way of thinking. You allow it, but don't allow it and want to call it cheating? I understand the realism issues. I have no concerns about realism in any games. I would not play anything otherwise. I obey the rules of game mechanics.

Your approach is bit like government promising to pay unemployment benefits to all unemployed people if they apply for it, but then they would try to hide all the application forms because is bit like "cheating" not to get job for yourself.

Please treat us like adults and let me or any other person to decide ourselves what is cheating and what is not. Concentrate improving or modifying game mechanics to your likings and make the UI best and easiest possible to do anything game mechanics allows.

This way you support the widest audience. UI should not reflect anyones personal taste in such case that it can do things equally good for everyone.

And once again because people are insisting it. UI behaviour change has nothing to do with spotting changes or game mechanics changes. No matter how hard you keep insisting simple mouse click behaviour change has nothing to do with those things.

But this is the wrong way around. You shouldn't be saying to yourself "I have a mortar team doing nothing, let's see what it can shoot at". You should be saying "I have a problem over here and some mortar fire would be nice. Do I have a spotter here, or can I get one into action?"

Steve

I just quoted a little piece, but answering more broadly.

Why do you want to decide for the gamer what is wrong way around to do things? If you game mechanic allows a set of things, would it be nicer for all that those who want to think "wrong way" and those who think "right way" can do same things? Why does the UI have to place restrictions? I find this kind of thinking bit offensive even. You treat us quite like child. The freedom of selecting own play style that is actually left in game mechanics (either intentionally or because restrictions are impossible to make or any reason) is then hidden under clumsy UI. I can see very little intelligent logic behind this.

[womble]

Yes, the action is the same.

Is it? If you can see an icon and click on it, it's the unit that's targetted (and the shooter will cease fire if the unit gets de-spotted), whereas area fire at a ground coordinate will continue until cancelled or ammo depletion.

If the icon remained there even when a unit was stood on some ground you could shoot at, how would the player be able to distinguish between spotted units and unspotted ones, and how would the computer be able to distinguish between the desire to shoot at the unit and the desire to shoot at the ground it's stood on?

As I said earlier, it's a "cheat". That Mortar Team has NO IDEA that there is an AT Gun there. You do as the player, therefore you as the player are "cheating" by having the Mortar Team using "Direct Lay" to hit something it has no understanding existing at all, not to mention at that specific point. Doing anything to make this easier is the wrong direction for the game.

That's for sure.

[Bridger15]

But this is the wrong way around. You shouldn't be saying to yourself "I have a mortar team doing nothing, let's see what it can shoot at". You should be saying "I have a problem over here and some mortar fire would be nice. Do I have a spotter here, or can I get one into action?"

Following this chain of logic, the most intuitive system (IMHO) would be to click on the intended target and hit a "support" button, then it shows you any FO that have LOS to the target (and the quality of those observers when factoring in their rank, range, etc.).

But it's pretty easy to spot FO right now. At least I think it is. I haven't played any REALLY big scenarios yet.

[Steiner14]

Because area fire without LOS is not always gamey.

A) A unit a 1000 meters away from the mortar spots an ATG. The mortar has not spotted the ATG, there is no way it has received the info from the spotting unit, has no LOS and LOF only to a spot that´s more or less close of the ATGs position. Area firing on that position = gamey.

You want to area fire a little bit beyond the LOS of the mortar because you think that's tactical sound = not gamey.

C) The mortar crew sees an enemy that then hides behind a wall/house... Area firing in the vicinity = not gamey.

How shall the game decide when to allow area fire and when not? It's better to let the player decide to restrict himself to cases and C) though I mostly can not .

I would say, if the mortar team cannot see the impacts of the grenades (spreading!), then it's a waste of ammo and area fire should not be possible.

The the question how the system could handle it: how making area fire dependent on LOS -> the spreading of the weapon defines the range, how much a target are may be out of LOS - i.e. a spreading of 30m@500m -> area firing beyond 30m of LOS is allowed, because the spreading of the weapon would create with high probability impacts within LOS and therefore allow the crew to judge the impact area.

IMO that would solve both problems: unrealistical use of area fire without spotters, but also allow targetting units slightly out of LOS (behind a house or a wall).

[SteveP]

Your approach is bit like government promising to pay unemployment benefits to all unemployed people if they apply for it, but then they would try to hide all the application forms because is bit like "cheating" not to get job for yourself.

No, I think the proper analogy is that what you want is like the government sending benefit checks to someone who has not applied for them, because the government "knows" the person is unemployed. You, as commander, may "know" there is something in that location, but most of the time IRL there is no practical way to communicate that exact location to a unit that has no intelligence about that enemy itself. You can't even use map coordinates because that is not available to all the units (and maybe to none of them). There is reason why there is a delay in the "receiving" phase for indirect fire, because of the time required to communicate target location instructions to a firing unit. But you want to be able to communicate that type of instruction to any unit instantly for an area fire order. The game doesn't prevent you from doing that, but the designers have no reason to make it easy for you to do that.

[Battlefront.com]

Is it? If you can see an icon and click on it, it's the unit that's targetted (and the shooter will cease fire if the unit gets de-spotted), whereas area fire at a ground coordinate will continue until cancelled or ammo depletion.

Yes, there is a difference in that sense.

Following this chain of logic, the most intuitive system (IMHO) would be to click on the intended target and hit a "support" button, then it shows you any FO that have LOS to the target (and the quality of those observers when factoring in their rank, range, etc.).

This isn't necessarily a bad idea. I don't know how much work it would take to make it happen, but in theory this is something that could be useful to some and yet not undo core game principles in an attempt to achieve a shortcut.

I would say, if the mortar team cannot see the impacts of the grenades (spreading!), then it's a waste of ammo and area fire should not be possible.

Mortars can not fire indirectly (i.e. at targets they can't see) without someone spotting for them. Meaning, you can not fire indirectly without LOS. The issue we're talking about is being able to fire at a place that you have LOS to but do not see a unit.

There is a tiny, not full, exception to requiring LOS to fire a mortar. You can use a mortar to fire just on the other side of an obstruction, such as a wall. This is completely realistic.

Steve