Direct fire order

[OlegHasky]

The essence of a question is so simple, and noobic, that I will have to delate it after Ill get the satysfying anser for it [:-][X(]

Its abot putting the fire by direct order. Or maybe in this case - putting only the mirrage of fire by direct order.

The normal combat fire is reflected in COTA with something like this [/img]



You have the sound, the visual ,and most of all - the effect, - you almost feel the fire comming out, and hitting the target.

Below is the random situation of direct fire order delivered to the group of Vickers (But it could be any of the units in this, or in other scenarios, as evry single unit - far - or close acting the same now)

[/img]

Tanks seem to get the order, and raporting that they shelling the area.
But there is no sign of the real fire being layed, by sound, visual, and most important - effect. (I could lay such fire on single unit, with hords of units, from multiple sides, and timeframes at the same time, and the unit staying intact. like the fire wasnt realy there.
Just an empty raport from the unit , that the fire is\was there.

Im confused, because I remember that my units - trough direct orders WAS delivering visible fire. Now NON of them do.




any helpo?

[simovitch]

OlegHasky, this is a good question and unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you because the fire command frustrates me as well. My experience is that conditions have to be just right for the unit to fire in this way.

Arunja is currently out of town, He should have an explanation for you when he gets back.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Hi Oleg,
I don't recall seeing you here before, so welcome to the forum!

There's a discussion of the use of the "direct fire" order here:

tm.asp?m=2117592

As you can see from reading the thread, many players share your concern.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[OlegHasky]

Ok, thanks for the replyes, and the link
 
I have read it. And have to join to the suprise level of simovich, even kick it to the top.
I am pretty shocked of people do not see real use of this.
For me, it is one of the most important options when it comes to handling "the tacticals".
It is vital.

With this excluded, the game loosing not only one of its option but ..a Dimension. (and a key one)

Though one thing is: -"is it usefull", the other: -"is it realy there" .

Because at this point - looks more like a catch, than a real thing, (and no offence [:-] -just a: [&:] ..and a [X(] ...if it appear to be something, that was just left behind)

I am curious how Arunja will lay down on this topic.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

Though one thing is: -"is it usefull", the other: -"is it realy there" .

This may be a situation where you just have to believe. It's useful if it works, but it's hard to tell if it does because there is no detailed recount of the fighting. Men and equipment get taken off the table for sure, but there's no information available that would help us analyze it (and allow us to improve our play).

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[OlegHasky]

It could be easy to check that online hvh.
As for now, I cant resist to belive in the emptiness that this kind of fire providing me

It would be less painfull to know that the shells are there,
and "only" the rest isnt

[OlegHasky]

 Units doesnt loose amunition during the "Fiering" raport after direct fire order.
Its a fatal empty option.

This would explain why Arunja hasnt stand up for this one.

The game is spoiled.. and he knows it

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

This would explain why Arunja hasnt stand up for this one.

Hi Oleg,

It's my understanding that he's really busy right now trying to get his new game out. [:)]

As you can tell from the thread that I linked you to above, there have been questions raised about the efficacy of the order. It would appear that many experienced players don't even bother to use it. I do, sometimes, when I want to concentrate many units on a target that I wish to reduce quickly. In those circumstances, it appears to work, but I can't prove it because I can't quantify the results.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

 Units doesnt loose amunition during the "Fiering" raport after direct fire order.
Its a fatal empty option.

This would explain why Arunja hasnt stand up for this one.

The game is spoiled.. and he knows it

OlegHasky,

That's rubbish but I'll forgive you. I looked into this last week as one of our beta testers reminded me of it. It turns out that the unit fires alright, expends ammo and causes casualties. The trouble is that if you're watching the E&S tab on the units data view, this is not refreshing as the unit fires. Try it out. Just switch to another tab and then back again and you will see the ammo expenditure. I've fixed the refresh for BFTB.

[simovitch]

Dave's right about the refresh - I just checked and 'fire' does work in COTA better than I used to think. Not seeing the ammo expenditure had me believing that the command was not as effective as it really is.

I remember using it in HTTR with the 88 platoons to pretty good effect. I just tried it with an AT gun in Sidi Rezegh and it fired off several rounds at the target.

[OlegHasky]

Thank you for forgiving me Arunja, but the thing isnt rubbish.[:-]
It is definitly not just about refreshing the tab.

Ive chcked that on the example above, with the tanks, and the other units separately.

Units do seem to catch, and project the the real fire finaly, but only in a result of 3-4 empty attempts of direct fire missions. (from the same position,and circumstances)

After the "catch" occure - the order is finaly alive. You have all the things you want to get to see its "living" (sound, vision, amo loss, and the blue point in the corner of a unit as a main sign, that a unit has actually lunched the shells) - with the most important result as the cherry on the top. Evrything.



But before this happen, you have minimum 3 empty fire missions, with only "Fiering" [8|] comunicate.
You can browse, and cruse trough the tabs\units for hours, and the unit wont register loosing ammo etc. (as it actualy dont)
I cant warrant about the lack of effort on the shelled unit, as I can only check that online hvh.
But with all circumstances above - I can assume , that the 3 "empty fire missions" are realy empty.
And you have to wait for a "cahtch".

If it is as Im seeing it. There is something wrong with this option.

And belive me - I am the first one opened to see myself mistakeing here, as I have a lot of respect and hunger for the series. (so dont thake it offensivly Arjuna).

I just do not want to see it spoiled by such bug.

[Lieste]

I don't have a lot of hours in COTA, I have previously only used someone else's machine whenever I visited them to quickly run through the Bridges at Lamia tutorial, but I do have the original RDOA. I have now purchased my own copy earlier today.

However, from my (limited) experience, the most important thing about the 'fire command' is that it dramatically reduces vulnerability, as the unit halts movement, and orients to the threat. A unit with high/max aggression, high ROF and high losses will definitely have reduced opportunity to fire once the 'Fire' command has been applied, as it reverts to normal aggression, ROF and losses for the duration of the fire command, and for the subsequent 'Defend' order, unless the user adjusts the parameters again.

Against the light opposition in COTA:BaL, a movement order with either max (or low) aggression, high ROF and max losses is adequate for pushing in and excellent for pocketing the German defenders, and the 'fire' order is good for stopping a unit when it reaches an intermediate blocking position, or comes under unexpectedly heavy fire and needs to go to ground and abandon a potentially costly advance. These order selections allow a typical run through to destroy some 1600+ infantry and guns for losses <90, under 'painful' order delays.

If needed you can terminate the 'Fire' mission by reducing the duration to the minimum and immediately enter defend - the fire rates are apparently lower than normal when under the fire order, but they definitely take the normal values once the unit enters the defend posture at mission end - perhaps the unit is only firing when it reaches the same 'random' selection of target of choice as that ordered? It misses firing opportunities when it would by choice engage elements outside the target box?

[Arjuna]

Oleg,

There could be a number of reasons why the unit ordered to fire doesn't do so before the time of the task runs out, which is only short BTW ( 5 minutes ). It may be that it does not have a line of sight to the target. Remember you may have an intel report on the enemy. It may have been generated by some other unit or by the unit you have ordered to fire but from a previous location or even from the same location but due to the vagories of the line of sight determination it can no longer get an effective line of sight. No LOS no fire. Certain weapon systems within a unit need to be deployed to fire. In most cases the deployment time is around 10 to 15 minutes. If you order such an undeployed unit to fire and the fire mission only lasts for 5 minutes, then it won't be able to deploy before the end of the fire mission. Another possibility is the range. If you order a unit to fire at a target and the fireing unit moves then it may no longer have the range to the target location and hence cannot fire. In fact there is a plethora of factors taken into account within the CanFire() code including crew availability, ammo availability and friendlies in the way.

As I said above I looked at this issue just last week and stepped through the code several times to ascertain whether or not the units were firing using the Fire order and I was able to confirm that it was working just fine. So I suggest you check the scenario in which this occured, preferably using a saved game taken just before the fire order was issued. Note the fire unit deployment. Check that it has an effective LOS using the LOS tool. Confirm ammo availability and the number of rounds. Then issue the order. Wait till it fires, refresh the E&S tab and confirm ammo expenditure.

[OlegHasky]

However, from my (limited) experience, the most important thing about the 'fire command' is that it dramatically reduces vulnerability, as the unit halts movement, and orients to the threat. A unit with high/max aggression, high ROF and high losses will definitely have reduced opportunity to fire once the 'Fire' command has been applied, as it reverts to normal aggression, ROF and losses for the duration of the fire command, and for the subsequent 'Defend' order, unless the user adjusts the parameters again.

Against the light opposition in COTA:BaL, a movement order with either max (or low) aggression, high ROF and max losses is adequate for pushing in and excellent for pocketing the German defenders, and the 'fire' order is good for stopping a unit when it reaches an intermediate blocking position, or comes under unexpectedly heavy fire and needs to go to ground and abandon a potentially costly advance. These order selections allow a typical run through to destroy some 1600+ infantry and guns for losses <90, under 'painful' order delays.

Lieste,

Your thinking is very tactical, but I woulnd let this as an overall rule.
As you are surely aware, there is a lot of combinations, and whole range of aplications for the direct order. Depending on the situation , you can allow yourself /or not/ for the decrees of vulnerability of some units to get the effort.

-In this particular example. charging with tanks is dubtfull, and probobly wont scare high moraled germans, who are on, with a successive campagn trough Greece.
They are in, with some AT equiped in those forests, deployed.. probobly want to waste some tanks, before they bail out trough the River,  ...and have a good chance of doing this to be honest, when you will let tanks flow.

Putting a line fire, with focused preasure east by Bn of Rangers, schould open the road just abouth, when the main collumn hits the neck.

[Lieste]

Yes, I agree, but a move order with maximum aggro leads the unit to deploy into line early, and as often as possible - they will usually orient on the movement direction unless they are taking flanking fires, and will not move forward unless there are no observed organised enemies within direct fire range.

In order to advance while in contact you must drop the Aggro setting to low or minimum, but the formation can be fixed as line/successive line/arrowhead to reduce depth and increase forward firepower. The combination of low and max aggression switches priority from movement to fire, and can coordinate bounding approaches needed to provide support and movement. If the tanks are in dead ground and the way forward isn't clear I would abandon the advance using a fire/defend order, replotting and resuming the advance once the artillery or infantry had reduced the AT threat to survivable levels.

If the tanks can see enemies they can be forced to deploy and engage without recourse to the fire command, and if not then 'fire' will have no direct effect beyond the 'deploy and orient' function which is very useful. Once deployed with LOS to the target, the use of a fire order can concentrate firepower on a particularly vulnerable/exposed/dangerous target, but I doubt that it noticeably increases the propensity of the unit to engage targets within range very greatly.

[OlegHasky]

..thats why I am looking at this kind of fire with special care [&o]

weknow the power of AA cals in field combat
And AA schould be treated with special care targeting. ..To be painfull-effective.

[/img]

this kind of set can provide short term( in this example fitness of the crew) very rapid fire from safe range. it has good man cover so can be assigned even on offenssive manoovers.

In deff..

[/img]

such kind of aera with well directed fire is almost unreachable for most bravers.
Otherwise, the attacker can easily swich round the focus of the guns, and get those towers.


etc..


(stays the question about the order delays in this one, but thats just other strory)

[OlegHasky]

Arjuna you have toe situation top above, the fire was goin from the same position.. -No prob for the fire to reach after a "catch" so - I do not take it.
&nbsp;
But lets leave that if you want.

[Lieste]

I think you might be disappointed about the fields of fire inland from those forts - Pembrooke can be approached completely safely from two directions to very close (600m and 350m), and covered routes get you even closer with limited intel. There is no mutual support between the two forts at all. Spinoza is a little better, the closest completely safe approach is 500m, and requires Pembrooke to be removed first - partially concealed routes get within 250m also. Neither St Andrews or St Georges can be taken under fire, so are suitable FUP or positions for artillery/mortars.

[OlegHasky]

 You have a point in this Lieste, thicknes of the covered aeras invites the attackers.

I admit I went with little rush using the word "unreachable", as my focus was mostly on pointing the importance of using direct fire. (wich in this particular/and many other/ combinations is vital)

Nevertheless I do not think you could walk in there so easily as it looks for you on paper..
/Cutting the forts from St.Julians in my opinion would be ever harder task than taking the forts itself/

/But assuming that you were some how able to take the easts of St.Julians[8|]/

You still have a very heavy cross-fire greeting you in evry variant, unless you lunch an approach from the south.
 
And If you manage to get those barracks well filled as a defender. 
-As an attacker, you have the perspective to be stuck in those farmlands long enough..

Sending an extra force cover for the Spinola will secure any potential transfer of the guns for you.
And from this point we are landing in a way for further combinations
 
So your point is good. But it was not a 10 hit, and I think after its all over, your boys would have a lot to say about the difference of those guns delivering. Those still alive that is... [;)]

[Lieste]

FWIW, I threw together a quick scenario using the units visible in this area, and assaulted with a German Infantry Regiment. The attack went in at dawn, and both forts lost their AA batteries by 10:00 ish, with the infantry holding out until late afternoon. Losses to the attackers were 43, mostly during the later fights within the fortifications with the Allied Infantry.

I concede that a human player should be able to do better with the guns in defence, but they do melt away very quickly once elements of the attacking force are within a 100m or so. The terrain is really horrible for the defender here though - large attacking forces can mass within assault range with little chance of decisive effect on them before they reach their objectives. The forts work for 18th and 19th century warfare, but with the arrival of accurate, effective light guns, mortars, heavy artillery and aircraft they are almost a liability.