Off map artillery assets bug

[drunkblackstar]

There is a tab "off map artillery assets" that never shows anything, despite my counter battery arty fires at the enemy artillery positions that they had already found.

I guess its probably a bug.

This is the save file from the end of "The Squeeze Play" mission. If you press "End game" you can see that "Off-map artillery assets" tab for the player is empty. But if you switch to the "Fire support" tab of the enemy, you can find, that some of his of map artillery assets are destroyed or damaged. That could have happen if only they had been detected and fired upon by player's artillery.

But despite that no info is available in "Off map artillery" tab. In fact, I have never seen this tab show something.

https://file.io/yhKh664PydNn

[MaximKI]

What version of the game are you seeing this on?

[IronMikeGolf]

This is long winded, as I want to explain the game and set the context for counter-fires in this era.

Game-wise, the off map artillery display shows firing units you can give missions to. It does not show everything that might fire missions to support you. Counter-fires, for US divisions, were generally run by Division Artillery. The MLRS battery's primary mission was counter-fire vs enemy artillery (not mortars) in the Division sector.

Counter-fire radars: one mortar counter-fire radar to cover each ground brigade sector and one counter-artillery radar (longer range capability) to cover the division sector. Counter-mortar would likely be fired by the artillery battalion in Direct Support of a Brigade.

So, at Battalion level, there are up to two artillery batteries and an MLRS battery that might fire, but not be under control of the Player.

On top of that, there is an artillery brigade from Corps to reinforce the division. So there are far more fire supports assets that can be controlled by the player. That includes info about those units.

Our choice as game designers about how to include these assets is a combination of simplification and abstraction:
1. Modeling all those firing batteries would be a HUGE pain-in-the-patootie for content developers.
2. Resolving individual attacks and target acquisition would add a pretty big drag on the game, time-wise.

And now, the rest of the story...

This game is really about Command decision making, so we strive to match that to reality. Let's consider the "who owns what" aspect of a combat sector. The game is centered on Battalion/Brigade/Regiment command. That level of commander "owns" not just the ground in sector but the airspace above.

Within sector, such a commander need not consult anyone else regarding potential conflicts for direct fire, indirect fire, and air ops (helo and fixed wing). Beyond that sector (meaning "off map") fires and air ops definitely need deconflicting so one doesn't shoot where adjacent ground units move nor air units fly.

So, while we could expose off-map enemy positions, that does not mean a player should be able to shoot at will at those locations. It has to be approved by higher. Absent simulating a plethora of adjacent unit activity, Division or Corp level deep attacks, let alone Air Force actions, we are back to defining a die roll result, so we don't make anything better than the current system getting this far into the weeds.

Summary: You don't get detailed info about what support assets your enemy has off map and that is by design, as it's not part of the information feed of brigade/regiment commanders and below get during a fight. Such a commander might very well not get BDA (Battle Damage Assessment) from higher echelon attacks during the battle either. That tracks with reality (based on experience in battalion and division command posts) and is definitely part of the friction we intentionally inflict on players.

I am entirely open to further discussion if the outlook on things is off the mark!