Why no repeats?

[gunnulf]

I think the thing you are missing is that whats being proposed here is not that a new TRP is created. This is complicated as while the firing unit would almost certainly register the target for future reference, this would not necessarily be shared with other units outside there own mortar platoon or artillery battery in the scope of the game timescale.

However what is easy to impliment (IMH experience), and very very realistic is that the spotter should be able to call for a repeat of same mission if: a) the spotter hasnt moved and can still see the target the firing unit hasnt been re-tasked to another shoot.

Here is how it works in principle roughly speaking:

A rifle platoon/company commander calls for a fire mission. He is not on the mortar/artillery net so this is passed up the C2 chain to the relevant section/battery. The time this takes should depend on how many links in the chain the spotter is removed. In reality if possible an FAO or MFC will take over the request if he can get into position to spot. However not always possible and in game terms this obviously doesnt happen so the request is relayed. But essentially once the request to fire is approved and the initial delay factored in to aquire and lay onto target then there is an ongoing conversation between the spotter and firer until mission complete called. Its entirely realistic that the spotter might not be satified with the initial rounds had neutralized/destroyed the target and call repeat. Makes much more sense than expending say 30-40 rounds and wasting too many valuable rounds. And as said if there is an ongoing conversation (given the above considerations) then it makes no sense to have to wait several minutes to fire again. This goes even more so for an FAO or MFC that is on the artillery net with a direct link to his own firing unit. Its really not gamey. Its a very good suggestion to make the artillery system more realistic. Of course there will be times when you do want to fire a long mission too continously without even a minutes break as you can also cease fire (not so easy to time in WEGO though obviously)

[Blackcat]

I think the thing you are missing is that whats being proposed here is not that a new TRP is created. This is complicated as while the firing unit would almost certainly register the target for future reference, this would not necessarily be shared with other units outside there own mortar platoon or artillery battery in the scope of the game timescale.

However what is easy to impliment (IMH experience), and very very realistic is that the spotter should be able to call for a repeat of same mission if: a) the spotter hasnt moved and can still see the target the firing unit hasnt been re-tasked to another shoot.

Here is how it works in principle roughly speaking:

A rifle platoon/company commander calls for a fire mission. He is not on the mortar/artillery net so this is passed up the C2 chain to the relevant section/battery. The time this takes should depend on how many links in the chain the spotter is removed. In reality if possible an FAO or MFC will take over the request if he can get into position to spot. However not always possible and in game terms this obviously doesnt happen so the request is relayed. But essentially once the request to fire is approved and the initial delay factored in to aquire and lay onto target then there is an ongoing conversation between the spotter and firer until mission complete called. Its entirely realistic that the spotter might not be satified with the initial rounds had neutralized/destroyed the target and call repeat. Makes much more sense than expending say 30-40 rounds and wasting too many valuable rounds. And as said if there is an ongoing conversation (given the above considerations) then it makes no sense to have to wait several minutes to fire again. This goes even more so for an FAO or MFC that is on the artillery net with a direct link to his own firing unit. Its really not gamey. Its a very good suggestion to make the artillery system more realistic. Of course there will be times when you do want to fire a long mission too continously without even a minutes break as you can also cease fire (not so easy to time in WEGO though obviously)

I wouldn't disagree with much of that. I do worry about game play, however, and at the end of the day this is a game.

In my PBEM games too many dissolve into a mortar/artillery fest as it is. The effect of "repeats" would I fear turn the first five/fifteen minutes of any game into an artillery registration session and thereafter the role of infantry into targets - advance small teams, the enemy open up, splat pre-regsitered artillery land on their heads, rinse and repeat.

It might be more realistic to have mortar artillery teams to remember where they have shot before, but what would it do to the game experience?

[gunnulf]

I think the fact is, it is not how it worked back then, and all these guys want to have arty controlled like the envision it today.

The only people that can answer what is realistic are not on this forum, that is for sure. But take just one issue. Radio's, back then, they were so flighty, when you did get communication, you made your request hoped it was clearly heard and that you might be lucky to still have communications when it was time to adjust spotting rounds. These simple things were not as realiable as today and the control on the battlefield was not designed to max. each round like we do today.

I totally see and appreciate your point. I'd love it if there was a random factor for radios not working at any given point, or requests denied for higher level assets, or the joy for an FAO being able to reach that nebelwerfer battery in 2 mins sometimes rather than always waiting 12/13mins for example. However nothing would piss off the general player base more than not being able to fire their guns relatively predictably I'm sure.

However I think we do our forebears a dis-service to not recognise that by 1944 the artillery arm was pretty efficient and effective. And remember implicit within the C2 in game are field telephones which were widely used both in the attack and defence.

[Peregrine]

I understand the TRP would only be for the firing unit but my point is still the same. There would be significant advantages to consistently calling in quick strikes whether you actually were serious about them or not. The advantage of being able to repeat it relatively quickly as required would outweigh the cost of 2-4 rounds.

[gunnulf]

Well, thats the whole point of doing it isnt it? As per historically. Anyway, I think its a good historical technical feature. Its up to the developers as to whether they want to impliment it or not in the future. If you really hate it then you can always agree a house rule in your MP games.

[slysniper]

Well, thats the whole point of doing it isnt it? As per historically. Anyway, I think its a good historical technical feature. Its up to the developers as to whether they want to impliment it or not in the future. If you really hate it then you can always agree a house rule in your MP games.

No, not really

that can be taken too far, if it was totally correct, it would be a very boring game.

Arty has been upgraded already to be much more powerful than in the older games and many players are not liking it because it takes away from other types of play. Now if it was realistic, lets just see. The shelling would last the whole game time, a walking barrage would be common in front of many American advances and so on. Are you getting the point, many battles were dictated by arty in real life. But in the game, most players want small arms, infantry or tanks to dictate the win.

What makes a interesting battle, not some spotter that can destroy anything in sight without any difficulties.

Plus , keep in mind, the game does not represent counter arty strikes, which would really make arty less than realiable as a asset you know you would have the whole game time.

Also once a request was made in the real situation, say you have a target and they hit it for 3 minutes, now you want a repeat, who is to say how many other sectors would have made a request in the 5 minutes you were using the unit, thus the reason to have to wait for a whole new request instead of just getting complete control of when you want to start or stop.

Like I said before, some adjustment would be nice in the arty request, but it is not bad as is. maybe a few extra volleys could be requested, but I would say it would be uncertain, like maybe a 50% chance of receiving them.

Plus to help keep the gamey aspects out of it, have it only allowed to increase the amount of shelling by 30% of the original request. thus preventing someone ordering a few rounds, finding target, then just repeating until thay are satisfied they have acheived the results wanted

[c3k]

I agree that a simple "continue" or "repeat" order for an FFE would be nice. I don't see how this breaks the game.

If I just spent 5 to 11 minutes registering, spotting, correcting, and FFE'ing a target, an immediate request to continue (or repeat) should not incur the previous delays. It should just fire another FFE.

Just my .02. (Search the CMSF forums for the same discussion. )

Ken

[YankeeDog]

I'm largely playing Devil's Advocate here (I would like to see some sort of repeat function for arty strikes), but I think one thing to consider here is that the Player-as-God perspective of CM allows the player to much more quickly and completely assess the effects of an artillery strike than would usually be possible IRL. This inescapable aspect of computer gameplay combined with a very liberal repeat fire function might allow the player to rapidly micromanage artillery response in a way that simply wouldn't be possible most of the time IRL.

So I can see an argument for keeping at least some restrictions on how and when a player can do things like order repeat fire missions. But I do think it it makes sense to have some sort of advantage to calling a fire mission down on or near a spot you've done so recently.

[gunnulf]

Perhaps only FAO (as the professionals...) could have the ability to repeat, and it should be the same mission as the previous request. I.e. if the original request was medium/short the repeat should be too. Encourages more use of FAO's to organise artillery & mortars (again historical) who would have the direct link, rather than every commander with a radio who would have to relay messages through Coy/Btln CP. Makes these call artillery in emergencies only and probably just the intergral mortars. Still a slight delay but much much reduced from having to wait 10 mins. I can see the danger of artillery being the Queen of the battlefield, but would be good to improve the characteristics of how it is called. You still have the same rounds with the same power, just more realistic deployment.

[Michael Emrys]

I think there may be some misconceptions on the loose here and they may be keeping clear communication from happening.

The effect of "repeats" would I fear turn the first five/fifteen minutes of any game into an artillery registration session and thereafter the role of infantry into targets - advance small teams, the enemy open up, splat pre-regsitered artillery land on their heads, rinse and repeat.

This seems to assume that the infantry or whatever is going to be just sitting around waiting until the arty gets all set before they start to move. In fact, the situation on the ground may have altered enough that your hypothetical artillery plan may be outdated.

Remember, all that is being asked for is for a continuation of an already ongoing mission. If the firing weapon was in the meanwhile retargeted onto some other point, then some kind of delay while it is brought back onto the first target would be appropriate, just not one as long as if this is the first time this weapon or battery had fired on this point. Are we clear now?

It might be more realistic to have mortar artillery teams to remember where they have shot before, but what would it do to the game experience?

Improve it a little.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

It might be more realistic to have mortar artillery teams to remember where they have shot before, but what would it do to the game experience?

I don't understand that at first. However I suppose what you mean is that having doen the calculations once there should be some reduction in the delay when switching back. Seem ssensible and probablya three minute call - the FOO and the mortar Officer would need to make very sure it was the same target, Did they assign names/number s to each fire mission?

[YankeeDog]

I don't understand that at first. However I suppose what you mean is that having doen the calculations once there should be some reduction in the delay when switching back. Seem ssensible and probablya three minute call - the FOO and the mortar Officer would need to make very sure it was the same target, Did they assign names/number s to each fire mission?

Generally speaking, artillery batteries of all types keep a written record of all shoots done, including exact tube & charge settings, number of rounds fired, etc. So the FDC for a given battery would be able to go back in the log, and quickly check the settings for any shoot already done that day.

I assume this would not always be the case for Company level on-map medium and light mortars, where shooting positions are not as prepared and would not always be time to set up a thorough FDC protocol.

[Michael Emrys]

I assume this would not always be the case for Company level on-map medium and light mortars, where shooting positions are not as prepared and would not always be time to set up a thorough FDC protocol.

It would be reasonable to limit this ability to mortars/guns which have not moved from their starting positions, which could be assumed to be if not actually surveyed, at least constant throughout the game.

Michael

[Blackcat]

Mr. Emrys,

I know from your signature that you have a history of being correct in your judgements (six times in eleven years is no small achievement). However, I beg of you to consider PBEM games are not always meeting engagements. Give me 15 minutes as the attacker on most maps under the proposed artillery memory arrangements and I'll be abe to drop shells pretty much anywhere I please for the rest of the game. As the defender I'll have every route in covered with, effectively, TRPs.

As you say the proposal is not just to be able to repeat the last mission (we can achieve that effect already by specifying a longer mission and then cutting it short) but for artillery units to remember what the "co-ordinates" were for a fire mission on a particular place/area and to be able to repeat that fire mission with a much shorter delay time. More realistic than at present? Yes of course it would be. However, if we wanted realistic artillery in these games then we could have predictive fire. It was developed and polished to a fine degree in WWI, but even in CMSF we didn't get it because it would ruin the GAME.

Artillery we all know is (whisper it in case Trail Ape is listening) the Queen of the Battlefield. However reducing the game, even further, to exchanges or mortar/artillery fire will, I suggest, not improve the experience (unless you are a TrailApe).

[Michael Emrys]

Mr. Emrys,

I know from your signature that you have a history of being correct in your judgements (six times in eleven years is no small achievement).

Actually I was correct thousands of times during the span in question. But only a small fraction of those times was one of you querulous bastards willing to admit it. And out of those few occasions I chose to select the ones I did. So there!

Now, to return to the matter at hand. While you are setting up these pre-registered points (for lack of a better name) "pretty much anywhere I please", as you put it, time is passing. Several minutes for each one. And rounds are being expended. Both are limited by the scenario. If you intend to engage in an orgy of pre-registration, you are likely to find that at the end you are acutely short of both. That to me seems to impose a very natural limit on gamey behavior. I know that at least for myself, I'd rather be dropping shells on enemy troops than on empty map coordinates.

Michael

[slysniper]

Mr. Emrys,

I know from your signature that you have a history of being correct in your judgements (six times in eleven years is no small achievement). However, I beg of you to consider PBEM games are not always meeting engagements. Give me 15 minutes as the attacker on most maps under the proposed artillery memory arrangements and I'll be abe to drop shells pretty much anywhere I please for the rest of the game. As the defender I'll have every route in covered with, effectively, TRPs.

As you say the proposal is not just to be able to repeat the last mission (we can achieve that effect already by specifying a longer mission and then cutting it short) but for artillery units to remember what the "co-ordinates" were for a fire mission on a particular place/area and to be able to repeat that fire mission with a much shorter delay time. More realistic than at present? Yes of course it would be. However, if we wanted realistic artillery in these games then we could have predictive fire. It was developed and polished to a fine degree in WWI, but even in CMSF we didn't get it because it would ruin the GAME.

Artillery we all know is (whisper it in case Trail Ape is listening) the Queen of the Battlefield. However reducing the game, even further, to exchanges or mortar/artillery fire will, I suggest, not improve the experience (unless you are a TrailApe).

AND RIGHT IN THIS COMMENT IS THE WAY YOU CAN PLAY WHERE YOU NEVER NEED THE REPEAT COMMAND ANYWAY.

You always have the option to order long missions and then cancealing them early anyway, so why would the repeat command ever be needed except for gamey tactics that would make arty very controllable and hardly any loss of ammo that was not needed.

[JonS]

I'm going to quote gunnulf here, for convienience. My comments should not be taken as referring only to him, or only to the points raised in the quoted bits of his post.

This is complicated as while the firing unit would almost certainly register the target for future reference

This is an assumption that simply isn't valid. Most targets would NOT be recorded. I'm also not aware of 'flicking back through the fire orders log book' as being a valid engagement technique.

this would not necessarily be shared with other units outside there own mortar platoon or artillery battery in the scope of the game timescale.

Indeed.

There is rather large potential UI can of worms - how to show the player that they can fire faster on a target, but only if it is [here(1)], and only if fired by [that(1)] fire unit and called for by [this(1)] observer. Meanwhile, if instead the player wanted to fire [here(2)], that could be faster as long as it's fired by [that(3)] fire unit and called for by [this(9)] observer. Or [here(6)] with [that(2)] by [this(4)]. And so on. That sounds - to me - hopelessy confusing and infuriatuing for players. Delays will be all over the place like a mad women's wotsit, and most players won't have any clear understanding of why or what they need to do to make it 'better.' The alternative seems to be to allow the placement of TRPs during play, which would much more streamlined from a UI perspective, but only quasi-realistic.

Bear in mind that artillery (like everything else) in CM is already much faster, more flexible, more predictable, and more reliable than any commander in 1944 could reasonably have imagined. Also, this kind of functionality is really only relevant as battles get up over battalion sized, on maps larger than 1km², and over 90mins long. While CM will happily allow battles that size, I don't believe it's intended to be used that way. Decrying a lack of functionality for situations it isn't really meant to cover doesn't carry a very strong imperative. IMO, etc.

Regards

Jon

[Jarink]

Here's my suggestion on how this could be implemented in-game.

1. An Arty mission is called in as normal and goes to FFE.
   
2. After it completes or is cancelled, a "REPEAT last fire mission" button appears for that battery/gun/mortar below the other mission types (point, area, linear)
   
3. If the unit is on-board and performs any other orders (move, fire, face, etc.), comes under any level of suppression or loses C2, the REPEAT button goes away.
   
4. Otherwise, the REPEAT button remains active for X number of turns (amount X depending on the level of support; for example Battalion 81mm mortars might be able to REPEAT for 9-10 turns while Corps 155mm Howitzers only can REPEAT for 5 turns) The X number could appear on the button to help the player remember how long this command is available?
   
5. If calling a REPEAT, the FO does not have to have LOS to the target; it fires with the same accuracy as the previous mission.
   
6. If the REPEAT button is selected, all of the mission parameters (type, duration, number of tubes, etc.) from that unit's previous mission are re-used and cannot be modified until the mission is in FFE. (this should reduce the potential "gamey" use of quick missions to register a target then blanket it with an emergency barrage later in the game.) If adjustments are called in, normal spotting rules (including LOS and any delays) are back in effect.
   
7. If the REPEAT button is selected, the mission parameters are displayed along with the normal target indicators.
   
8. If the REPEAT button is clicked but the fire mission not confirmed, then it's just like any other arty request that isn't confirmed and nothing happens.
   
9. Once the REPEAT mission is in FFE, it's treated like a normal fire mission and can be cancelled, adjusted or REPEATed.
   

[sburke]

Here's my suggestion on how this could be implemented in-game.

1. An Arty mission is called in as normal and goes to FFE.
   
2. After it completes or is cancelled, a "REPEAT last fire mission" button appears for that battery/gun/mortar below the other mission types (point, area, linear)
   
3. If the unit is on-board and performs any other orders (move, fire, face, etc.), comes under any level of suppression or loses C2, the REPEAT button goes away.
   
4. Otherwise, the REPEAT button remains active for X number of turns (amount X depending on the level of support; for example Battalion 81mm mortars might be able to REPEAT for 9-10 turns while Corps 155mm Howitzers only can REPEAT for 5 turns) The X number could appear on the button to help the player remember how long this command is available?
   
5. If calling a REPEAT, the FO does not have to have LOS to the target; it fires with the same accuracy as the previous mission.
   
6. If the REPEAT button is selected, all of the mission parameters (type, duration, number of tubes, etc.) from that unit's previous mission are re-used and cannot be modified until the mission is in FFE. (this should reduce the potential "gamey" use of quick missions to register a target then blanket it with an emergency barrage later in the game.) If adjustments are called in, normal spotting rules (including LOS and any delays) are back in effect.
   
7. If the REPEAT button is selected, the mission parameters are displayed along with the normal target indicators.
   
8. If the REPEAT button is clicked but the fire mission not confirmed, then it's just like any other arty request that isn't confirmed and nothing happens.
   
9. Once the REPEAT mission is in FFE, it's treated like a normal fire mission and can be cancelled, adjusted or REPEATed.
   

I am kind of with JonS on this as it gets a bit more complicated if you start thinking of impact of other items. As some examples

1) FO 1 calls in a mission for Battery A. Later FO 2 calls in a mission for Battery A. Do they both now have a repeat last mission or does the battery only track that very last mission?

2) Does the game now have to track the condition of the last mission called in for each battery and the state of it's FO (if they are broken, dead, suppressed, shaken etc).

I'd have to hear from BFC as to how much overhead and confusion this is going to generate before really forming a strong opinion.

[gunnulf]

I'm going to quote gunnulf here, for convienience. My comments should not be taken as referring only to him, or only to the points raised in the quited bits of his post.

This is an assumption that simply isn't valid. Most targets would NOT be recorded. I'm also not aware of 'flicking back through the fire orders log book' as being a valid engagement technique.

Indeed.

There is rather large potential UI can of worms - how to show the player that they can fire faster on a target, but only if it is [here(1)], and only if fired by [that(1)] fire unit and called for by [this(1)] observer. Meanwhile, if instead the player wanted to fire [here(2)], that could be faster as long as it's fired by [that(3)] fire unit and called for by [this(9)] observer. Or [here(6)] with [that(2)] by [this(4)]. And so on. That sounds - to me - hopelessy confusing and infuriatuing for players. Delays will be all over the place like a mad women's wotsit, and most players won't have any clear understanding of why or what they need to do to make it 'better.' The alternative seems to be to allow the placement of TRPs during play, which would much more streamlined from a UI perspective, but only quasi-realistic.

Bear in mind that artillery (like everything else) in CM is already much faster, more flexible, more predictable, and more reliable than any commander in 1944 could reasonably have imagined. Also, this kind of functionality is really only relevant as battles get up over battalion sized, on maps larger than 1km², and over 90mins long. While CM will happily allow battles that size, I don't believe it's intended to be used that way. Decrying a lack of functionality for situations it isn't really meant to cover doesn't carry a very strong imperative. IMO, etc.

Regards

Jon

Sorry, I disagree and with respect I think you are speculating without too much basis. Plus you selectively quoted me, I made a difference elsewhere between 60mm coy level mortar firing on the hoof who would be unlikely to record accurately their targets (though in defence they more likely would) and established and more stable mortar baseplates and gun lines who would record targets as they were received. In simple terms they would record the grid ref/fire mission when recieved in notebook, plot on map, make there fire calculations, and use aiming posts to lay the barrels onto target. I speak as an infantry officer of 12 years with 2 years in mortars. Whats your qualifications? Things have changed I know but the basics were developed in WW2 and they are not so different if you take away the computers. You train to fire with and without. Give them some credit for knowing their craft.

That said, thats all largely irrelevant to the main thrust of the arguement which is that the ability for a spotter to call for a repeat of the last mission without having to go through the same delays as if it were a fresh mission, so long as the firing unit has not been tasked with another mission (and shifted its guns elsewhere). Its very very simple to understand, its realistic and it improves the game. Its not an instant win button, just an enhancement that improves the flavour of the game.

[gunnulf]

Here's my suggestion on how this could be implemented in-game.

1. An Arty mission is called in as normal and goes to FFE.
   
2. After it completes or is cancelled, a "REPEAT last fire mission" button appears for that battery/gun/mortar below the other mission types (point, area, linear)
   
3. If the unit is on-board and performs any other orders (move, fire, face, etc.), comes under any level of suppression or loses C2, the REPEAT button goes away.
   
4. Otherwise, the REPEAT button remains active for X number of turns (amount X depending on the level of support; for example Battalion 81mm mortars might be able to REPEAT for 9-10 turns while Corps 155mm Howitzers only can REPEAT for 5 turns) The X number could appear on the button to help the player remember how long this command is available?
   
5. If calling a REPEAT, the FO does not have to have LOS to the target; it fires with the same accuracy as the previous mission.
   
6. If the REPEAT button is selected, all of the mission parameters (type, duration, number of tubes, etc.) from that unit's previous mission are re-used and cannot be modified until the mission is in FFE. (this should reduce the potential "gamey" use of quick missions to register a target then blanket it with an emergency barrage later in the game.) If adjustments are called in, normal spotting rules (including LOS and any delays) are back in effect.
   
7. If the REPEAT button is selected, the mission parameters are displayed along with the normal target indicators.
   
8. If the REPEAT button is clicked but the fire mission not confirmed, then it's just like any other arty request that isn't confirmed and nothing happens.
   
9. Once the REPEAT mission is in FFE, it's treated like a normal fire mission and can be cancelled, adjusted or REPEATed.
   

Spot on. Simple, understandable, achievable.

[JonS]

Whats your qualifications?

Artillery officer. 21 years.

[sburke]

Artillery officer. 21 years.

Is it me, or did it just get quiet in here? Sorry couldn't resist. It was either that or a comment about this feeling like High Noon.

[gunnulf]

Artillery officer. 21 years.

Great, lets talk business. Whats your take on the rest of my points? As an FAO if you are in contact with your battery, you have aquired, requested, you have spotted, you have FFE 12 rnds, target not neutalised so you call repeat, what do you expect to happen?

A mortar platoon sets up a baseline. Do they set up aiming posts? Do they take notes, keep a log?

Did the guys in WW2 know their craft or were they just cowboys throwing bombs about?

And finally moving to the game terms - would the suggested implimentation by jarink above sound like a sensible way to model the repeat command in a way that adds a bit of flavour, without adding god like abilities to recall any mission by any unit?

[Peregrine]

While you are setting up these pre-registered points (for lack of a better name) "pretty much anywhere I please", as you put it, time is passing. Several minutes for each one. And rounds are being expended. Both are limited by the scenario. If you intend to engage in an orgy of pre-registration, you are likely to find that at the end you are acutely short of both. That to me seems to impose a very natural limit on gamey behavior. I know that at least for myself, I'd rather be dropping shells on enemy troops than on empty map coordinates.

Michael

But you only ever quick shoot which is 2-4 rounds. On the US side the minimum shells you seem to got stock standard is 32. So theoritcally at worst you could repeat this procedure 4 times per battery and still have 16 shells to drop quickly and reliably on the first real threat you come across. And that is only if you guess poorly and don't pick likely enemy positions accurately.

And you wouldn't have to dole all 16 out once a viable target is covered. You can keep the 4 shell repeats up until you are happy. I feel this would work well in the game environment but I don't think in reality advancing squads would be perpertually calling in quick strikes in this manner.