When we will have artillery overhaul?

[exsonic01]

I'm satisfied with AB updates so far. But I really wish to see new artillery system for this game.

1) Show artillery model names (ex: M109 Paladin) from purchase screen.

2) Differentiate regimental / division / corp level artillery units. Game could offer different artillery unit layer based on their level, from both purchase screen and fire support screen. Then differentiate possible fire support units and price.

3) Differentiate the point price per artillery model. Price can be decided based on mobility, survivality & armor, rate of fire, accuracy, range and etc...

4) Introduce artillery FO and air controller. Distinguish artillery incoming speed and accuracy in & out of TRP, and in & out of LoS of FO or air controller. Let FO and air controller LoS as a possible region for guided munition support.

5) Counter battery.

6) Chemical rounds & tactical nuke

7) Show off map artillery units. Players have no control of their movement, but only can watch them.

8) While players can't directly control artillery, let players able to set some important parameters, such as frequency of shoot & scoop (number of salvo) or frequency of changing position (time) or etc.

There were more by me and others, but I can only think of those.

[Perturabo]

I second this.

[Artillerist]

Strongly agree, but it'd all be bittersweet in my opinion if they don't first figure out how to get arty/mortar kill credits to register in the AAR.

[nikolas93TS]

I think it makes sense differentiating between 105mm/122mm and 152mm/155mm systems. Also the off map representation, we were thinking about that already.

However, is it really necessary going that deep into particulars? I have seen plenty of people having difficulties with current system, and it is pretty simple compared to realistic artillery call procedure.

[exsonic01]

However, is it really necessary going that deep into particulars? I have seen plenty of people having difficulties with current system, and it is pretty simple compared to realistic artillery call procedure.

Hmmm I like the realistic representation of units with their ranks and formation, same goes to artillery... but well, for beginners, you are right, it might be inevitable to abstract something...

I still think things like #8 might be necessary if AB introduce counter battery in game. Players (and AI) cannot directly control artillery units, so some options to choice evasion-oriented / fire-support-oriented artillery play style should be there. Options like shoot and scoop frequency or changing position frequency would automate such evasion maneuver, help players not to babysit all artillery units. If good default values are given, new players would easily catch about those.

Or, instead of #8, maybe it would be possible to introduce "move" or "evade" command for artillery units in fire support panel in game. If "move" or "evade" command issued by player or AI, artillery units will immediately move to random surrounding positions after specific amount of time. Time to initiate move (artillery unit command delay) should be depend on mobility (towed or tracked or wheeled), weather and ground condition, and degree of training, whether the units were firing shells or not, and etc. But such manual option will make players to babysit artillery every single time.

But I also think your comment has some point. Too many freedom and too many options would make things too much complicated for new players (ex: how new players think about CMANO and Harpoon series). So, it would be better to just depict artillery units to shoot several salvos and automatically move, and leave no options to players. Anyway, CB or automated evasion would prevent "arty-noob" style game flow.

About FO and air controller, my intention was about allowing guided munition support in AB, from air or artillery (you don't need to depict airplane, just show approaching airplane). Plus, this would enable AH64 LOAL option. But, oh well, if this might make too much complexity then... I don't know. Because I kinda agree simplicity and good abstraction is important as well as realistic representation. May need to think about this as well...

[Lowlaner2012]

For me the Arty system is ok, simple but functional, although CB fire would be cool...

One question though, would the AI be able to handle the extra options?

[exsonic01]

One question though, would the AI be able to handle the extra options?

IMO if AB introduce CB, then it would be inevitable to set up some options (changing position frequency or shoot & scoop frequency or etc) for survival of artillery units, because players cannot directly control artillery units in AB. But if such additional options increase the complexity too much, then it would be better to set those frequency control as automatic default, and remove additional options. Or make such option as little as possible.

[nikolas93TS]

I assume counter-battery will be implemented in future, but largest share of work will probably go in implementing a specific UI for it. I think it should have enable/disable feature switch in battle generator.

[Artillerist]

The most logical route for implementing counter-battery, in my opinion, would be to either;
1) temporarily reveal on-map firing artillery/mortars after a delay or
2) place a firing icon (similar to what is already in game) above all unobserved on-map artillery/mortar after a delay when they fire (the delay should be adjustable in the database to allow for the reflecting of actual standards/capabilities).

If you wanted to go deeper you could require the presence of an on-map radar(which should also create a "firing icon" when it's active).

The Ai should then be taught to both relocate after fire missions and prioritize fire missions on visible or detected artillery.

I'm concerned that abstracting the impact and effects of the counter-battery fight with unobservable off-map resources could have unintended and unrealistic consequences. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

[exsonic01]

Maybe it would be possible to depict artillery unit like current helicopters in AB. Set up 4~5 big circular points around the outside of battle zone as artillery BP, and let them move their position among BPs by player / AI signal? This way, though players cannot fully control artillery units like other units, but can control them when (and where) to move their positions. Instead of fully automating the shoot and scoop by frequency option, this option will force players (and AI) to issue a move command for their artillery units. Unlike fully-automated way, such direct control will give a chance to value sound and tactical command, which will be rewarded and good players will get some benefit. But poor decision will be punished. Good wise decision will on move or don't move position will save his or her artillery from CB devastation, or reduce wasted time for movement. Of course, artillery units will have their own time to deploy and undeploy.

Not sure if it is possible to be introduced in AB, but how about allow mines in CB mission to block road for artillery units? I was only thinking of DPICM and HE for CB, but mines will reduce their movement speed or even could deny their movement, and of course could damage some artillery units. If the chemical & tac nuke is introduced in this game in the future, it would be possible to consider CB mission with chemicals not to directly aim artillery units, but hinder their movements or position by targeting and contaminating major roads. But this is just a brainstorm idea, maybe it would be better to depict as direct fire CB for simplicity.

And I figure out some problem about the showing off-map artillery units. This feature might be limited by map. I mean, if the battle zone is extreme north west corner of regional map and if the direction of axis of battle of game is west vs east, then there is no space behind the western side of battle zone to show off-map artillery units... There might be a better idea. Maybe, how about setting "artillery zone" for 5~40km (minimum 5km, and 0km if player of AI set no artillery) outside the battle zone, at the direction of axis of battle?

The most logical route for implementing counter-battery, in my opinion, would be to either;
1) temporarily reveal on-map firing artillery/mortars after a delay or
2) place a firing icon (similar to what is already in game) above all unobserved on-map artillery/mortar after a delay when they fire (the delay should be adjustable in the database to allow for the reflecting of actual standards/capabilities).

If you wanted to go deeper you could require the presence of an on-map radar(which should also create a "firing icon" when it's active).

The Ai should then be taught to both relocate after fire missions and prioritize fire missions on visible or detected artillery.

I'm concerned that abstracting the impact and effects of the counter-battery fight with unobservable off-map resources could have unintended and unrealistic consequences. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I like this idea, but how do you think about target for CB mission? In current AB, players (and AI) can set the target coordinate, in or out of TRP. Should players have a control towards CB fire target coordinate? Or should it be fully abstracted / automated by AI?

[Artillerist]

@exesonic As it stands, the player has ultimate control over every friendly fire mission that gets shot. I would keep it that way.

I love Flashpoint Campaign's automation of some counter-battery tasks, and being able to assign tasks is great but I'm not sure Armored Brigade could implement those types of functions without radically changing the character of the game. So with that said I'd put the burden of both displacing to avoid incoming counter-battery fire, as well as the decision whether to execute fire missions on detected enemy artillery on the player as well.

[exsonic01]

I also like the automated CB feature in FCRS. I wish AB also finds its own good way for CB

[capttyco]

Just to add to this: the distribution of fire is off. A 6 gun battery of 155MM (NATO) will usually shoot around a 60m circle radius for most targets, a linear is also very common. In AB the rounds land in a random pattern which is not how they would land IRL. Although weather conditions add some uncertainty depending on how the guns are aimed the fall of shot should be pretty predictable. I am greatly enjoying this game and I would love to see the artillery get some love.

[Artillerist]

@capttyco Just to clarify; Is your disagreement with the games' distribution options or lack thereof (ie no option to specify open/converged etc, limits on target dimensions precluding destruction fires)? Or the games' depiction of the affect of CEP on the fall of rounds within the target area (ie percentage of rounds landing within the beaten zone)?

I think the devs are probably applying their own methods of achieving distribution, but it's worth mentioning either way that in the Armored Brigade time frame the standard BCS sheaf was a cicular target with a 100 meter radius. Even today this is pretty typical for artillery as the expected area of coverage from 1 (6 gun, 155mm) Battery firing 1 round per gun is a 155 meter radius circle (or 275mx275m square). Linear sheafs are usually applied in the absence of an observer generated target dimension for road columns, smoke missions and finally FPFs.

Totally agree that the artillery (all the fire support) could do with a lot of love.

[capttyco]

I guess it would be a bit of both. Having some distribution options would be nice, especially if you wanted a linear in a different direction than N to S. Playing today I still think the CEP is off. Im not sure of how it is calculated but there seem to be far too many rounds lading outside of the designated area (275x275). Even taking into account charge (which is something I dont expect AB to do) 80/90 percent of all rounds should land in the given circle. As it stands it can be up to 40% on some volleys.

[nikolas93TS]

I think everybody can guess none of developers served in an artillery unit.

What is doable is differentiation on classes and counter-battery (which for now we envisage as off-map with visual representation).

[Artillerist]

@nikolas93ts Could you expound more on how you're planning on depicting counter-battery? In my head I'm imagining a worst case scenario where it amounts to the player and AI suffering through random blocks of time where off-map artillery support is either delayed, denied, or destroyed because of the abstracted presence of counter battery.

[exsonic01]

LOL I just wrote a long post but for some reason it crashed and it is all gone.... [&o]

I will write this some time later. But the key is how we give the control of movement to artillery unit, if CB is introduced. For fire control, current fire control box is enough. But how to control off map unit's movement is the key point for the introduction of CB in AB.

Plus, there should be delay time for artillery units, for initiation of any maneuvering and movement from fire support mode, and for the preparation of fire from any maneuvering and movement. I'm not sure exact time cost for it, as I'm not a artillery unit veteran. But I can tell towed guns and SP guns will have different fire preparation time and movement preparation time. Pricing of artillery units can be differ by those factors plus other factors.

[Gratch1111]

I agree with art needs a do over, to me its the CB and the different types of artilleri. There is a large difference between light, medium and heavy artilleri and its impact. MRL should also be a class of its own with light medium and heavy.

[Perturabo]

And it would be nice if we could define indirect fire tracers and soft damage. I swear it has nothing to do with radium XD .