When we will have artillery overhaul?

[lancer]

Hi nikolas,

I don't know. What benefit would more complexity in this area bring to the game when the existing system does the job in a reasonable manner? Whatever you do to enhance artillery is inevitably going to involve off-map abstractions. There's nothing wrong with that and who can argue against more of anything? But with artillery, at the end of the day all you're going to end up with is a bunch of extra numbers in a UI box.

Speaking soley for myself, I don't wish to play an 'artillery simulator' that requires extra number shuffling for abstract, imaginery, units. I want to exercise combined arms visually on a map. I want artillery as part of the process but it just needs to be there and do it's job, not be a whole new micro exercise in and off itself.

Armored Brigade is a game about maneouvering On Map units. There are ancillary services such as artillery and air but they are abstracted to keep them simple and to retain the focus of the game. Making one of these abstract elements a bigger deal is going to blur that focus. Additionally if you start slicing up abstract artillery into different calibres and different formations what are you going to do about counter battery fire which is arguably a way bigger factor than all the rest combined?

What's going to happen when you've got abstract artillery units firing at other abstract artillery units? As I may have already mentioned, however you do it, it's going to end up as just another bunch of numbers about stuff that isn't on the map and isn't the focus of the game.

There are other areas where the impact on the broader player and customer base would be greater - stuff that is On Map such as spotting, infantry issues and the ability of friendly units to take independent action to enhance survivability when unexpected things occur, for example.

On the other hand if you were repositioning the game for a primarily military audience then any extra fidelity with artillery may be worth the extra dev time.

Either way, give yourself a medal for manual reading excellence.

Cheers,
Lancer

[edit] I have it in my head that you are one of the Devs but I think that's not the case and that you're just a guy expressing an opinion like I am? If so then you can ignore my rant as I only posted 'cause I thought it was a dev point of view. If you wish to push the artillery point of view then go for it as freedom of expression is a good thing.

[Artillerist]

I agree with Lancer on some points and strongly disagree on others.

I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about the design and effects of abstracted counter-battery. Have to be careful with that one.

I agree that less abstraction, and more emphasis on on-map units is preferable to abstract forces influencing the fight.

I disagree that any improvements to calibre and the sub-division of assets into roles turns the game into an arty simulator. Not even close. I don't know how anyone could reasonably come to that conclusion unless they're just too unfamiliar with the differences between how Brigade/Battalion/Company operations are executed to understand the gulf between what we have in-game versus reality . Weapons systems have different effects, roles, capabilities; from assault rifles to Rocket Artillery systems. Nobody would ask that all tank guns to have the same capabilities and effects so not sure why anyone would prefer that all artillery have the same capabilities and effects.

You're rewarded for being sensible enough to not attack tanks with lightly equipped infantry, penalized for the opposite. That's not complexity that's common sense. 155mm howitzers don't have the same effects as 60mm mortars, you should be rewarded for being sensible enough to match the system with the desired effects, and penalized for the opposite.

Nobody criticizes combat mission, steel beasts, flashpoint campaigns, command operations, cmano, or any other game for having too complex a fire support model, or modelling the differences between artillery calibres. Not sure why these complaints should have relevance to AB.

[nikolas93TS]

Indeed, I am one of the developers.

Yes, I forgot to mention artillery kills in AAR. Also, fire mission orientation (attitude) is a very good suggestion.

Our design philosophy was always to keep things from perspective of the ground (or maneuver) commander, with player having to deal both both subordinates (command delay) and superiors (he cannot control everything). He is not an artillery or air commander, he ask for support and only thing he cares about is that support is delivered. That is why some of the suggestions were discarded or abstracted. Sometimes introducing a particular feature is like opening a Pandora's box. I think Lancer put it down very nicely.

Artillery rework is part of much wider game overhaul going underway that will encompass many key features, including but not limited to command structure, electronic warfare, individual spotting etc. It is a tenuous task because we want to make the game even more detailed and realistic while trying to keep it accessible and playable. But we will stick to artillery on this thread.

Artillery differentiation has been widely demanded, I don't think it will represent too much of a hassle for the player (if he cannot differentiate 105mm from 155mm, then it is likely he doesn't make difference between lets say T-55 and M1 Abrams...such players do exist, but they are probably a small minority in this genre).

However, counter-battery and very likely mission differentiation will be optional when generating the mission. In that way we can keep the simplicity and spare some players the (possible) frustration, while giving the chance to raise the challenge to those who wish so.

Another certain thing is that artillery will remain off-map. It is not only the question of above mentioned design philosophy, but primarily because it requires a whole new AI for handling it. At that point we can remove 15x15km limit for maps and release a stand alone artillery simulator.

[nikolas93TS]

As for counter-battery fire we start with premise that a firing mission may be a hazardous undertaking for an artillery unit. Firing many rounds from the same location carries significant risk that the enemy will detect (by flashes, sound, radar etc.) the location of the artillery unit. Therefore, the shooter may want to periodically change location to avoid counter-battery fire. The difficult decision is deciding how long guns can remain in one place before moving. This requires judgement about the enemy's counter-battery responsiveness.

A primary component of our model is “risk,” which increases over time when player stays in the same position. The risk represents enemy’s effective firing rate, which is the rate that enemy fires rounds multiplied by the probability a round hits the player. These two quantities (especially the hit probability) will increase in time as player stays at the same location. Frequent moving generates low risk, but it consumes much time and effort and imposes a cost of lost firepower.

Introducing direct and general fire missions, artillery formations, as well some other features, will help us to possibly construct a statistical model that AI can use to handle it's own counter-battery. Player can use his experience and intuition to determine when the artillery should change locations.

Travel times should be pre-set by database creator, based on technology level, weapons, if artillery is towed of self-propelled etc. Similar can be said for general artillery, as there could be a percent chance defined in each national data file that an artillery unit will be displaced by one location after each mission that it fires, or just unavailable. Differentiation of artillery types will also allow us to allow for a more realistic doctrinal representation of different periods (for example, heavy artillery used to be primary counter-battery source, for example the US divisional artillery has been among the first to my knowledge to be given the mission of counter-fire in the 1970s, and has received a target acquisition battery for locating enemy artillery).

I am still on edge regarding permanent damage to artillery units, or it should be just translated to temporary suppression and unavailability.

[lancer]

Hi nikolas,

Arrrgh! You are dev. Trust your instincts...

Is the overhaul you mentioned planned for the current, or next, iteration of the game?

Cheers,
Lancer

[nikolas93TS]

Next. It will require a brand new database.

[exsonic01]

I like all those ideas, Nikolas. Direct and general support idea and distinguishment of artillery caliber and tube/rocket, CB mission... This is what I also wished to see from AB and other ground-based wargames, and I think those are good balance among realism and the 'gaming fun' factor. Also, selectable CB as a pre-game option is also a good idea IMO.

Regarding artillery unit damage, would it be possible to use different models based on different munitions? For example:
1) HE = very low chance of direct damage. Only indirect damage (mostly light damage) and suppression.
2) ICM = good chance of direct damage and even being wrecked + suppression.
3) Chemical (and incendiary like WP or Napalm)
-a) Full NBC: No direct damage, but receive suppression + requires additional time cost to being operational in terms of decontamination.
-b) Partial NBC: Small chance of direct damage or being destroyed. Suppression + additional time cost to being operational in terms of decontamination.
-c) No NBC: Very good chance of direct damage or being destroyed. Suppression + additional time cost to being operational in terms of decontamination.
4) Tacnuke = Very good chance of total destruction, and survived units will cost a huge time for decontamination.
5) FASCAM = Same effect with a description of FASCAM to armored vehicles in current version of AB.
This way, survivability of towed guns and SP-guns will be greatly distinguished. (Do towed-guns and SP-guns also in the plan of new arty description?) In this case, towed-guns should be compensated with cheaper price.

Regarding the description of artillery units, will it be purely off-map like current AB? Or are there plans or considerations for the description of arty units as non-controllable units? If there is a plan to describe arty units in-game, how about using a very simplified version of arty units, in the "outside-of-AO" area on the map?

In current AB, the description of the area outside of user-defined "gameplay AO" (but still within the total area map) is very simplified with bigger pixels and lower brightness. (Check Artillerist's post with the screenshot above) Let's describe artillery units in those areas. It doesn't need to fully depict the graphic of those arty units outside of "gameplay AO". It would be great if they came with good graphics, but I think simplicity and resource-saving would more important. Instead, let's use a very simplified description of some square pixels with NATO symbols and show name/unit type. Currently, if an airplane flies outside of "gameplay AO", airplane is described as a group of pixels. I think the same can be done for artillery units.

Then, let the AI/player set 4~5 "firing position" of artillery (just like helicopter's BP in current AB). This way, players cannot and do not need to directly micro arty units, but only can order fire/movement among firing positions. The same artillery fire support control box can be used, and it won't affect on learning curve of this game.

Regarding the movement of arty units, maybe it would be good to enable players/AI to set SOP for arty units movement. This way, arty units can prioritize mostly to use road networks, or mix road or off-road, or prioritize mostly off-road. In this case, wheeled units and tracked units will have their own pros and cons. Players and AI can use FASCAM to "trap" arty units by block road networks. This can be an additional tactical choice for players and AI.

This way, the effect of the range of artillery, firing direction, effect of counter-battery fire can be naturally described in this game, and players can watch them. This way, the entire artillery mechanism can be more intuitive, and the game can escape from some possible criticism like "RNG roll of CB mission ruined my game". Some players just can't accept the situation of his or her plans are ruined without understandable visual evidence or reason, but just because the RNG roll was purely bad to him or her that day, without showing them.

[exsonic01]

Also, speaking of counter-battery, it is also possible to conduct such mission using air assets. The concept of joint interdiction, or joint fire support is nothing new. The concept is developed from the cold war, even from the days of the Vietnam war. However, such a fast reaction speed for CB for air interdiction assets is usually not possible or has a very narrow window, and requires a very organic datalink system with efficient command structure.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... _MG301.pdf

For example, counterbattery fire was often delivered within two minutes of sensing the incoming fire during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This level of responsiveness is possible from the air for selected high-priority missions
(e.g., the leading elements in a major offensive such as the 3/7th Cavalry during Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Special Forces conducting direct-action missions) but requires a huge force structure to sustain for prolonged operations over a large battle space.

Most significant among these is delivering firepower quickly against suddenly emerging targets, as in the case of counterbattery fire, whenever friendly artillery has sufficient range. When fast reaction times are required, normally on the order of two minutes or less, artillery will generally be more satisfactory than air power unless an aircraft can be placed on station before a target emerges, for example, when an AC-130 flies a protective orbit or an attack helicopter provides overwatch for ground units. During the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in South Vietnam, the mission of delivering quick-response fires to support patrols encountering guerrilla ambushes was progressively taken over by a system of artillery firebases throughout the country instead of maintaining aircraft on patrol to provide CAS on short notice.

So, maybe in current AB, it might not be possible to see air interdiction as CB mission. But in the modern battlefield? I think it might be possible.

[nikolas93TS]

Hi Exsonic01, when you talk different damage models you are talking about counter-battery fire? I am yet undecided if there should be permanent damage to targeted artillery units, although I am in favor only if it is rendered optional for those players who don't mind it.

My current idea for artillery is to have an optional tab in purchase menu where player buys artillery formations. The basic fire unit is a battery (although for some factions, like USSR, it might be mandatory to purchase a battalion consisting of few batteries). Each artillery unit will have its own properties (name, caliber, type, towed/self-propelled, possibly even rate of fire). Rocket artillery will be a separate formation, with special rules I explained few posts above.

While buying an artillery formation, player will also have the possibility to choose between above mentioned direct support and general support. I found this separation an excellent way to simulate doctrinal differences between factions (Exsonic01 might recall the long discussion on Soviet response times and flexibility). Direct support will function pretty much identically as it does now, with an addition of "attitude": angle of the fire mission.
General support, on the other hand, will use the same simple fire procedure, but player will generate a fire-support request rather than fire mission. It can be randomly delayed (it will be placed into a priority queue to be fired at the earliest available opportunity, which may or may not be prompt), or denied outright, because general support depends on higher command or other officers deciding according to availability and the priorities. According to faction and historical period, direct support and general support formations might be allowed or not to perform counter-battery fire (for example, traditionally it was the role of heavy artillery). General support will be overall much cheaper, to offset lack of firepower reliability. I think it will have a positive effect on gameplay since in many scenarios with lesser amount of points (or in campaigns) artillery is prohibitively expensive or outright unavailable.

Now, the counter-battery. It will be optional, according to player preference when setting the battle.
As mentioned above, battery will be the basic fire unit. Which means that while the player will keep his freedom to assign individual tubes for fire missions as he wish, but he will be forced to assign a whole battery to counter-fire role. Equally, the risk factor (which we currently graphically envisage as a coloured bar) with be shared with the battery from which the tube(s) are firing. As mentioned earlier, a primary component of our CB model is the “risk”, which increases over time when player stays in the same position and performs fire missions. The risk represents enemy’s effective firing rate, which is the rate that enemy fires rounds multiplied by the probability a round hits the player. These two quantities (especially the hit probability) will increase in time as player stays at the same location. Frequent moving generates low risk, but it consumes much time and effort and imposes a cost of lost firepower. Equally, player can dedicate his batteries to counter-fire, sacrificing his firepower in order to reduce the enemy fire.

The risk will be influenced by several factors, like artillery type (which influences the range, elevation, target type and number of projectiles being simultaneously tracked) as well electronic warfare, opposing side training, presence of UAVs etc.

Abstraction is handy because it allows us to simulate a wide aspect of realistic factors, without having to model them physically and allowing us to preserve the simplicity of current model.

However, as rightfully noted, abstraction can cause frustration. We have categorically agreed against on-map artillery units as they often have ranges well in excess of 15km, and some recent systems even surpassing the size of our master maps. Idem for battle positions, as we want to keep things simple and with as with less micromanaging as possible. The simple icons outside the battle-area were discussed too, but there are some issues with geographical orientation (for example, what if scenario is representing the unit breaking though the encirclement or trying to reach friendly lines in opposing direction) or if battle is conducted at the edge of the master map (black screen). This haven't been yet definitely shelved, thought.

But, our artist has come out with an idea to have some form of animations or other visual clues illustrating the player what is happening. But we still have to produce a draft for that, and similarly we still have a lot to discuss about precision guided weapons and how they will be implement. Which is closely intertwined with another hot topic: the forward observers (or battery command posts, FIST teams etc.).

My current ideas is to have them bought as an addition for front-line formations or HQ, depending on factions. In US case, the platoon forward observers are assigned to the FIST supporting each infantry company or cavalry troop in the BCT and to the battlefield surveillance brigade. The BCT cannon field artillery battalion coordinates with fire cells at BCT and battalion level; and FISTs and forward observers at company level. I would really appreciate if Artillerist or someone else knowledgeable on the topic would leave a remark on this, particularly with description of filed operations, as manuals are pretty dry on that practical aspect (at least to me).

I know everybody would like to see them as physical units, but I am certain we will have very serious issues teaching the AI how to use them properly (primarily how not to get them killed, yet make them use advantageous terrain features).

All-in-all, artillery (together with some aspects of modern air operations) is proving the most demanding to re-work and I have spent weeks reading and rethinking about this. So feedback and suggestions are highly welcome!

[Artillerist]

Ask and you shall receive:

Relevant Doctrine is FM 6-30 (Chapter 2, which lays out the organization of the FIST and FO parties, at company/troop level) and Chapter 1 in FM 6-20-40 (heavy), FM 6-20-50 (light) which both go into more detail.

FISTER is the term used to describe all members of the 13 Foxtrot Enlisted MOS regardless of assignment as well as their assigned Field Artillery Officers, and the term FIST describes the group of FISTERs in a Company HQ as I will describe below.

In a fully manned BDE you'd have:

2 FISTERs per Infantry platoon (whether light or heavy), organized into a 2 man FO party, they provide responsive area fires to fulfill infantry platoon needs. Only sometimes equipped with a laser designator, but always equipped with radio, map and binoculars.

4 FISTERS per Company level HQ in Armor, Infantry, and Cav units organized into a FIST. Equipped with a G/VLLD (laser designator, either carried or vehicle mounted), and capable of coordinating the fires for the company/troop, and providing direct laser designation for Copperhead and Aerial delivered precision guided weapons.

Following the math, that makes 10 FISTERs per infantry company (heavy or light units) but only 4 FISTERs for Cav and Armor troops.

5 FISTERs are assigned to the Headquarters of a Battalion/Squadron and form a Fire Support Element (FSE) consisting of three enlisted FISTERs and 2 Field Artillery Officers (a Captain or Major, and Lieutenant). The FSE serves mainly as a coordination cell.

5 FISTERs are assigned to the Brigade HQ and form another FSE consisting of three enlisted FISTERs and 2 FA Officers (major and lieutenant), again as a coordination cell.

9 additional FISTERs per Heavy Brigade HQ form into 3 COLTs, each consisting of 3 enlisted FISTERS, and each equipped with a G/VLLD for precision designation.

or 3 FISTERs per BDE HQ in a light BDE formed into 1 COLT, also with a G/VLLD.

Platoon FO parties travel on the supported platoon's vehicles (either M113 or later Bradleys, often with the Platoon Leader)
Company FISTs used the M113 until widespread fielding of the M981 FISTV in the mid 80s (1984/5ish) and later the M7 BFIST in the 90s.
FSEs at Battalion and Brigade HQs used the M577. COLTs used the Humvee, and FISTV depending on availability.

The FIST system was introduced in the late 70s. Prior to the introduction of the FIST, 2 Field Artilleryman and a Field Artillery Officer would serve as an FO party at each Company level HQ echelon in Infantry/Armor/Cav formations, and would move around as needed.

[nikolas93TS]

Thank you Artillerist!

There are several key issues to address with FOs (for simplicity sake, I will use this generic term for FISTERs, JFOs, COPs etc.). Personally, I wouldn't have even bothered with them if they were not necessary for implementing laser-guided precision weapons. Artillery with accurately modeled capabilities and available at the whim of what can be a company commander (player) will totally dominate the game-play at that force level, and that is why current, fairly simple and effective model, was not criticized much. Ditto for FACs, if you want to play at coordinating stuff like airstrikes, you really need a game at a higher echelon than AB.

First issue is the necessity to have a very flexible system that can cover a wide number of factions and doctrines, over a very wide time spanning from WW2 to present. Some games of similar scale create ad-hoc systems that are very detailed but applicable to 2-3 factions per game.

Second issue is AI. Here most of the games resort to AI-scripting for each scenario, or feature FOs that are effectively usable only by the player. The former is not implemented in AB as of date, the latter is strongly against our design philosophy.

Third issue might be the engine itself. 30x30m squares might not be well suited for fine techniques like FOs team crawling, siting in tree-tops, behind ridges, hull-down positions etc.

As FOs by nature tend to always stay or be in close contact with leadership, the simplest solution could be to keep the current artillery spotting system and to assign a predefined number of laser designator system (varying according to faction, force size or artillery formation) to HQs. Those could also serve as accurate rangefinders, eliminating fire-adjustment delays if we opt to implement more variety in that area. I should note that we are working on OOB re-work that will include layered command network so there will be more integrated HQ units on map.

If the FOs/COPs were always deployed as in manner similar to attached picture, that would have rendered things easy. However, it can positioned elsewhere in the company area to optimize its lasing/spotting and communications capability, or can be detached as for example COLT in US army or observation post.



Arguably, we can go for above mentioned abstracted and slightly unrealistic approach where special equipment like an M981 or a MT-LBu ACRV (or infantry forward observer team) is attached to company or above HQ and given the capability to place TRPs anywhere in LOS at game time (however, I would arbitrarily limit it to just 1 or 2 active TRP at the same time, to prevent player spamming the whole map with TRP and annulling doctrinal limitations; plus there will be era/faction dependent delay between order and TRP appearance). And of course, laser designator which will allow for point attacks with PGM.

That way we can make things much easier by not having to implement a highly complex special AI positional algorithms for independent FOs and other AI behaviors that goes with that (and are not guaranteed to make a smart AI). And the players might get some additional tools to play with if they wish so (he can create a separate HQ artificially acting as an observation post, for example).

[nikolas93TS]

Bumping this up, because now is the perfect timing to give feedback on the re-work proposal and maybe give some additional suggestions.

[Artillerist]

My feedback on the proposals is that you're sounding sharp, and in control of the situation, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of your work and research.

[noonanda]

Just got done reading this all, lots of good info. Im a retired Marine Artillery Ops Chief, I was FDC for artillery, taught fire direction at my MOS School, and then in 2006 Got to play Grunt and FO in Iraq while advising the the Iraqi Army, called in for Artillery quite a few times and also called air. I was also the 81s Plt Sgt for an Infantry Battalion. I now work as a Contractor teaching Fire Support Systems, and employment to Marine Corps units such as Infantry Battalions.

I like alot of what has been said, especially with the DS/GS conversation. One thing to remember is say an FO called in a Mission for a target to large for that arty btry or it didnt have the best munitions it could "Request for Reinforcing Fires", which really means that it would kick the mission up to the Arty Bn in DS to that infantry Regiment/Brigade. Now I know the Army Does it different, but for Marines each infantry regiment "theoretically" would have an Arty Bn in DS, and any batteries left over would be assigned either GS, GSR (General Support Reinforcing) or Reinforcing. This is similar to how I always understood Army Div and Corps assets supporting the fight. We would assign those GS batteries to also cover the Counter fire fight, unless we had Army MLRS attached (11th Marines used to get 6-27 FA attached every Spring for our Regimental DESFIREX).

Iraq/Afghanistan Counterinsurgency doctrine changed how we would do counterfire. Instead of in regards to counterfire. Instead of using MLRS, it became a battery or Plt of guns dedicated at some of the larger Forward Operating Bases (FOB's). There was a 2 Gun Paladin Plt based in Habbaniyah that provided us with fire support as well as counducted many counterbattery missions against insurgent mortars.

If there is anything I can do to help with ideas please let me know. I know some radar employment as well, but not as much as I used to back in the day.

[Artillerist]

Hey Noonanda-- nice to have another artilleryman in the mix.

Funny enough I was at Camp Fallujah and TQ from March 2006 to July 2007. I was an Artillery FO and FSS in an Army mechanized infantry company split off from our brigade and attached to MNF West. We brought our battalion 120mm mortar platoon and Bradleys with. The 120s set up for the duration in the south end of Camp Fallujah, and at the time 2/11 Marines had 3 M198s set up just north of our mortars. To round off Camp Fallujah's firepower we also had an Army GMLRS section from the 3rd Infantry Division set up in the NW end of camp.

Our 120s and 2/11s 155s (callsign "hateful" if i recall correctly) shared the counter-battery responsibility as well as servicing all our fire requests, while the GMLRS mostly shot west towards Ramadi and Habbaniyah. We'd also bring our 120s (as well as some 60s and 81s we fell in on) if we ventured into Zaidon area and for other random missions.

Worked with a Captain Angel from one of your Anglico units for air and quick air clearance on mission. A pair of marine helos ((1 cobra and 1 huey) were usually the first air on scene though in the event we declared a TIC.

Called in my first lethal 155mm mission on December 14th 2006 from 2/11 Marines while we were in Zaidon. Used a viper vector, sent it up as an Adjust fire polar, 400 meter distance, danger close, but someone processed it as a Fire For Effect. Worked out okay though. Will never forget that though.

[noonanda]

ORIGINAL: Artillerist

Hey Noonanda-- nice to have another artilleryman in the mix.

Funny enough I was at Camp Fallujah and TQ from March 2006 to July 2007. I was an Artillery FO and FSS in an Army mechanized infantry company split off from our brigade and attached to MNF West. We brought our battalion 120mm mortar platoon and Bradleys with. The 120s set up for the duration in the south end of Camp Fallujah, and at the time 2/11 Marines had 3 M198s set up just north of our mortars. To round off Camp Fallujah's firepower we also had an Army GMLRS section from the 3rd Infantry Division set up in the NW end of camp.

Our 120s and 2/11s 155s (callsign "hateful" if i recall correctly) shared the counter-battery responsibility as well as servicing all our fire requests, while the GMLRS mostly shot west towards Ramadi and Habbaniyah. We'd also bring our 120s (as well as some 60s and 81s we fell in on) if we ventured into Zaidon area and for other random missions.

Worked with a Captain Angel from one of your Anglico units for air and quick air clearance on mission. A pair of marine helos ((1 cobra and 1 huey) were usually the first air on scene though in the event we declared a TIC.

Called in my first lethal 155mm mission on December 14th 2006 from 2/11 Marines while we were in Zaidon. Used a viper vector, sent it up as an Adjust fire polar, 400 meter distance, danger close, but someone processed it as a Fire For Effect. Worked out okay though. Will never forget that though.

Yeah my First Combat call for fire was something I wont forget. Those 2 Army Paladins at Habbaniyah were fast, the delay was clearing air from Hab/TQ to allow them to shoot. One of our Advisors called in a HIMARS GMLRS shot on an Iraqi house with IED material in it. I had dropped an house with similar IEDs in it with air a few days before so likely it was a new "Bomb House".

I tried doing a few different missions to try to speed up the missions to include a Immediate Suppression, but it didnt seem to make a difference

[binaryfireball]

so uh do you think we will see some form of CB in AB2? ;D

[nikolas93TS]

It is very likely at some point. The artillery rework model has advanced well beyond this discussion; it's like a 15-page long paper, including formulas. However, it is divided into two phases: 1) artillery diversification, and 2) advanced features such as counter-battery. The first phase must be as simple as possible for casual players, while the second phase is for enthusiasts like us. As much as I try to simplify it, there is still a whole science behind it.

[binaryfireball]

Glad to hear! I think this will add a ton of new depth to battles. Also thanks for all the work! I love AB!