please disallow pre-planned arty

[poesel]

Pre-planned arty can be used to attack anywhere including the enemys setup zone. Thats unrealistic(*), gamey(**) and is already achievable by other means(***)

(*)

in RL theres no setup zone - at least none so small and so known by the enemy

(**)

I don't have to explain that, have I?

(***)

buy TRPs - three minutes later you can let fire rain anywhere you want

There is is the valid case of an attacker attacking an entrenched position. But again: buy TRPs and wait three minutes. Thats a small sacrifice compared to the wasted time having a battaillon sized setup nuked in minute 1.

I know I'm not the first to ask and I will probably not be the last. But this is really one feature I won't miss having.

[PhantomApple]

House rule takes care of this w/o nerfing pre-planned barrages. Just talk to your opponent before shots are fired.

[Hiram Sedai]

Me losing so often to the AI is most disconcerting and not realistic at all. I protest vociferously because I am very very good at Lego Batman on the PS3.

Yes, I'm sure the rest of you agree with me.

[LemuelG]

gamey(**)

(**)

I don't have to explain that, have I?

Yes, you do. Please explain away the reality of planned barrages in real warfare... I am curious, particularly after you extoll the 'buying' of TRPs and calling in artificially-shortened on-call bombardments as a more authentic option. What nonsense.

[John Malcolm]

As well as pounding enemy defensive positions prior to an assault, it was fairly common practice (dependent on the ammo situation) to fire on areas where the enemy was suspected to be forming up.

I wouldn't mind an option within the purchase screen to cap points spending on artillery units depending on what type of engagement was being played (perhaps an allowed percentage of overall points), on top of the overall points limit and rarity points limit, but I'd object to pre-planned artillery being removed all together.

Having said all that, I'm one of the people that would like indirect fire artillery to be able to be fired at any point on the map at any point during the game - with the associated loss of accuracy for not having it observed. If there's a steep hill, I'd expect to be able to ask my mortars to fire behind in - especially if I can hear tracked vehicles clanking around. Likewise, if there's a wood, and I can only see a short distance into it then I'd love to be able to 'map fire' into it's middle.

For this to work properly though then the player wouldn't be shown any visual clues as to where the shells were landing - unless his units had LOS - to prevent players from knowing their map fired artillery wasn't falling in the spot they requested it.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, there's constant citation of an attacker's "assembly areas" being pummeled as soon as there was a hint that they were being used. Therefore, inherently, preplanned bombardments by the defender is not unrealistic nor gamey IN THEORY. Where theory runs into some issues is the certainty of it all. In a game you have 100% certainty that the enemy is going to attack you. Kinda pointless to play as the attacker and not attack, right?

Game conditions, however, do limit how frequently this happens. First off, the defender needs to have at least some artillery. If he has only a little bit, chances are he might bombard the wrong place or bombard ineffectively. The problem for the defender is if he uses his artillery blindly on the first turn he has no idea how effective it is. Not only that, he's now without artillery when the actual battle is joined. This could result in completely ineffective use of a precious resource that could have been used decisively later on.

Obviously if the defender has a LOT of artillery then he can spread his risks out. However, artillery is expensive. A good attacker can easily recover from even a very effective disruptive first turn bombardment. Just hold back a bit, reorganize/recover, then proceed knowing the enemy has either shot off his artillery or has compromised his ground forces in favor of artillery. Personally, I would much rather the defender squander much of his point allocation on artillery than infantry, AT weapons, and armor. While it is true I can't do much to defend against artillery, it's a difficult tool for most people to use effectively and therefore I'd rather go up against some mortars than I would an effectively placed rifle platoon.

Just my two bits worth

Steve

[Ranger33]

There's no nothing unrealistic or gamey about it, except in ME, where it is inherently illogical due to the nature of the scenario. A lot of those maps have small setup zones in the corners, which I can only assume were not intended to be blasted with artillery in the first 30 seconds of the match. Like others said though, pretty much everyone will agree to have no pre-planned barrages on those maps.

[LarsS]

There's no nothing unrealistic or gamey about it, except in ME, where it is inherently illogical due to the nature of the scenario. A lot of those maps have small setup zones in the corners, which I can only assume were not intended to be blasted with artillery in the first 30 seconds of the match. Like others said though, pretty much everyone will agree to have no pre-planned barrages on those maps.

Yeah, I agree that the problem lies in too limited setup areas on some maps, not in pre-planned bombardment as a feature. In a perfect world, every map would have a minimum of a 500 m deep setup zone for the attacker and lots of space for the attacker to defend in depth and keep reserves hidden and not too concentrated. Mapmakers' and low end computer owners' lives would get a lot harder in that world, though.

[Chad Harrison]

What nonsense.

You cant resist can you? First to me in my thread, and now here to someone else?

[DavidFields]

I agree with the sentiment of the original poster--though perhaps not a complete ban. I think it is as much an issue with the attacker flawlessly hitting likely defensive locations.

The flat bocage maps may be making this even more of an issue. If I am unlikely to be able to see anything during the scenario, it makes more sense to use my artillery as pre-planned bombardment.

Yes, of course, there was pre-planned bombardment. But:

1. Should it be in the scope of a CM2 scenario (or, to what extent)? This, of course, is subjective decision.

2. I think the linear bombardment ability is particularly devastating. It allows the only usual way of hitting behind a long Hedgerow, allows blowing up an entire hill ridge, and allows one to target the edge of a forest. Just taking out the linear pattern (yes, an arbitrary decision) would markedly decrease the likely benefit of pre-bombardment.

3. A counter to pre-bombardment on the defensive side is putting troops out in the open in foxholes--if foxholes were a more effective place than currently to put units in, that is.

I realize this is going over old ground. And I realize there are workarounds. But from a purely fun standpoint, the risk of being made miserable by being whacked on turn 1 will turn a lot of people off the game. (Granted, one could use a lot of pre-planned artillery and miss everything--but then you get the same result, that the fate of the scenario is determined on turn 1--not a very enjoyable prospect.)

It is just one of those things that, even if it only happens once, if you get thoroughly murdered with artillery on turn 1, either on offence or defense, certain people will throw the game out the window. And then not buy more modules. The people who play CM are clearly not into easy thrills--but we all have limits.

[poesel]

Yes, you do. Please explain away the reality of planned barrages in real warfare... I am curious, particularly after you extoll the 'buying' of TRPs and calling in artificially-shortened on-call bombardments as a more authentic option. What nonsense.

I'm not talking about real warfare - I'm talking about this game. In reality there are no preset setup zones and the are no map borders you can't cross.

The reality of this game is, that you have limited space and one point in time where you know exactly where the enemy is (obviously this is worse the smaller the map is).

I haven't used the word 'authenticy' either - this is a gameplay issue.

I agree with Ranger33. Maybe I'm biased because nearly all games I played so far were MEs.

Also it is at least a bit strange that you can pre-plan your artillery anywhere you like but in the game you can not. Thats why I like the idea of the TRPs so much. You get an advantage and you pay for it. Good thing IMHO.

[MikeyD]

'Gameplay balance' players seem to have an issue with this. 'Wartime recreator' players don't. The game starts and everyone dies violently in a huge artillery rocket attack? COOL! Much of the opening of Cobra involved US solders walking forward over the charred corpses of their enemy. Admittedly, repeated use of that gameplay technique would get old pretty quick. Asking the game to disallow the action is like demanding toaster makers design a toaster that won't let you stick a fork into it while running. Instead of redesigning it, I sounds simpler to simply not stick a fork into the toaster.

[dpabrams]

Does anyone have a cut and paste set of gentlemans rules for a PBEM game? Also is there a fan site for PBEM guys who can do 5-7 turns a week, more on some days? I play PBEM with one guy and he is a total mope.

[Statisoris]

Vs human opponents, I feel anything goes, we can make our own rules. I think the main problem with preplanned barrages is in how the AI ALWAYS uses them to target setup areas and painted objective areas on Turn 1 (mostly applies to smaller maps with little room for setup choices). I've stated this in multiple threads but I will restate my points. If the AI has any artillery available at all, it will almost always target the objective areas and setup areas in an instant, preplanned, turn 1 barrage. I would not call this behaviour gamey or unrealistic, I would just call it annoying and not beneficial for enjoyment of the game vs AI. The AI is so predictable that you should never set up any units in the painted objective areas if you want to have a fun battle with a decent shot at victory and yes I know people define fun differently. This is a game and games should be fun and if you think pretty much losing a match against AI on turn 1 is fun, then I would call you a Gamer-Sadomasochist. Instantly losing half of your well chosen and planned out force is NOT FUN for most players who have very little time in life to enjoy their gaming hobby. If even a third of your units that really SHOULD be stationed in defensive positions inside the objective areas on turn 1, get creamed on turn 1, then why the heck would you knowingly put those units in harms way after spending so much effort and time in choosing and setting up your forces. I mean you could use self control and go ahead and place your units there knowing full well they will very likley get mauled on turn 1, but I personally very much dislike making those self control type decisions vs AI. Having to make those decisions vs AI usually means your decision is actually a work-around due to a flaw in the game.

Preplanned AI barrages should not be banned alltogether, they should just be toned down, made more unpredictable and have a much greater random factor in target area and accuracy.

[Sgt Schultz]

I am assuming the main issues are with AI QB ME(m o u s e) pre-planned barrages?

If so, then this seems to be a map/design issue, rather than a "it's broke/unfair" issue. If the AI can purchase enough arty to smack the player's setup zones effectively, then the setup zones may be too small for that battle size.

The purchase parameters may also be allowing for an inordinate amount of artillery.

Easy fix time...

If you have found a QB map you really like, except for that issue, then I would suggest you take the map into the editor and expand the setup zones somewhat.

Save it with a new number.

Delete the offending version.

Taa-daa, you're a map maker.

If you are having this issue with a Human player, and it is in violation of a pre-battle agreement, then take your ball and go home.

If you are having this issue with a Human player and there was no agreement, you have just learned a lesson. Man up and soldier soldier.

-

[MarkEzra]

...Having to make those decisions vs AI usually means your decision is actually a work-around due to a flaw in the game.

A "flaw" in the game? I think not. It is your opinion that it is a flaw in the game. It is my opinion that AI first turn Arty strikes help balance the AI's ability to attack and defend against the God Like ability the human player is, by necessity, allowed. All AI arty have multiple plans and are set for "suppression". No arty plans are set to strike the Attackers Setup area, but obviously the Human defenders Objectives will be among the target choices for the AI. Human Attackers who use the forward edge of their setup zones may, on occasion, take casualties from errant shells or larger caliber arty strikes. Human Defenders are subject to shelling throughout their setup zones. Such is war even in our computerized sand box.

As if it matters....My opinion on Human vs Human first strike arty (excluding smoke) is: It's Un-sportsman like. Players should use the delay feature or actual eyes on the ground to control arty fires.

[Erwin]

dpabrams: Take a look at Band of Brother site (YUKU). Some good, reliable and fast oppos there.

[dpabrams]

dpabrams: Take a look at Band of Brother site (YUKU). Some good, reliable and fast oppos there.

Getting sponsored, a Yuku account? I don't know sounds like a lot.

[PhantomApple]

Does anyone have a cut and paste set of gentlemans rules for a PBEM game? Also is there a fan site for PBEM guys who can do 5-7 turns a week, more on some days? I play PBEM with one guy and he is a total mope.

IDK what the rules would be cept no setup bombarding and perhaps limiting scouts. Scouts isn't a huge deal as there is a price you pay IMHO, but ya can't think of many.

[Statisoris]

... It is my opinion that AI first turn Arty strikes help balance the AI's ability to attack and defend against the God Like ability the human player is, by necessity, allowed...

I do agree that the first turn Arty strikes do help balance out the Human vs AI brain factor. Just finished a quick battle attack on AI. The AI sure does pick and set up forces really bad sometimes. Their entire force consisted of about 8 75mm AT guns and a few scattered LMG and HMG teams which were placed in weird locations like behind tall bocage with no sight lines in non-critical locations on the map.

[Broken]

Yeah, there's constant citation of an attacker's "assembly areas" being pummeled as soon as there was a hint that they were being used. Therefore, inherently, preplanned bombardments by the defender is not unrealistic nor gamey IN THEORY. Where theory runs into some issues is the certainty of it all. In a game you have 100% certainty that the enemy is going to attack you. Kinda pointless to play as the attacker and not attack, right?

Game conditions, however, do limit how frequently this happens. First off, the defender needs to have at least some artillery. If he has only a little bit, chances are he might bombard the wrong place or bombard ineffectively. The problem for the defender is if he uses his artillery blindly on the first turn he has no idea how effective it is. Not only that, he's now without artillery when the actual battle is joined. This could result in completely ineffective use of a precious resource that could have been used decisively later on.

Obviously if the defender has a LOT of artillery then he can spread his risks out. However, artillery is expensive. A good attacker can easily recover from even a very effective disruptive first turn bombardment. Just hold back a bit, reorganize/recover, then proceed knowing the enemy has either shot off his artillery or has compromised his ground forces in favor of artillery. Personally, I would much rather the defender squander much of his point allocation on artillery than infantry, AT weapons, and armor. While it is true I can't do much to defend against artillery, it's a difficult tool for most people to use effectively and therefore I'd rather go up against some mortars than I would an effectively placed rifle platoon.

Just my two bits worth

Steve

In many Attack QB maps installed with the game, the attackers setup zone is very small compared to how many units are crammed into it. Small enough that a defender can gain a decisive advantage by barraging said setup zone and inflicting far more damage than the cost of the barrage. This is a rather boring way to win the game and pisses off your opponent to the point where they show up on this forum saying how "dissapointed" (sic) they are in the game.

I don't think BFC has to do anything about this situation other than making people aware that it can happen and that fair opponents will agree before hand not to engage in pre-planned arty into attackers setup zone. Yes, there certainly were a number of cases where such tactics worked in real-life, but the defenders were taking a gamble and won. In real-life, the defender does not know exactly where the attackers jump-off line is located. There is no gamble when the attackers MUST setup in a very small zone known to the defender.

[MarkEzra]

...Just finished a quick battle attack on AI. The AI sure does pick and set up forces really bad sometimes. Their entire force consisted of about 8 75mm AT guns and a few scattered LMG and HMG teams which were placed in weird locations like behind tall bocage with no sight lines in non-critical locations on the map.

BFC looked at QB TOE selections for the next patch.

The AI setup locations are on me. "non-critical" locations may be specific to a particular QB game and it's TOE or just a really dumb place I chose to paint yellow. If players are willing to accept the former and can provide specific info on the latter I would be happy to look at the map. Here's what I would need: the map name and a pic or specific location of a bad AI placement. Just send me an email ( Mark.Ezra3591ATGmailDOTcom) and I will do my best to correct my error

[De Savage]

Back to "pre-planned arty".

Scenario makers can make artillery coming as reinforcements, example 5 minutes after start. That way you cannot use pre-artillery. No more "gamey" pre-artillery.

[etagimbo]

In many Attack QB maps installed with the game, the attackers setup zone is very small compared to how many units are crammed into it. Small enough that a defender can gain a decisive advantage by barraging said setup zone and inflicting far more damage than the cost of the barrage.

I would rather increase the size of the setup zone then than disallowing pre-planned artillery.

I am strongly against disabling realistic features in the favor of "play balance". I don't even mind who wins the battle when playing the game, I just want to see a drama unfold.

[WineCape]

As Steve implied: "It won't change."

As helpful posters said:

(1) Agree to change the setup zones yourself and make them larger;

(2) or agree beforehand not to launch 1-min bombardment;

(3) take it on chin or don't play that person again if you cannot come to an pre-battle agreement;

(4) limit beforehand the max points on arty and/or size as per in-house play rules.